Yufa v. Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:09-cv-00968
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Yufa v. Lighthouse, Judge Hixson dismissed Yufa’s patent complaint without leave to amend because he no longer owned the patent.
Alexandr L. Yufa, who represented himself, and Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc.; the complaint was dismissed and could not be amended.
What happened
Yufa v. Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc. involved Alexandr L. Yufa’s claim that Lighthouse infringed his patent for particle detectors and reference voltage comparators. Yufa represented himself, and the case had been paused since 2015 while related patent cases were resolved.
Yufa later told the court that he had assigned the patent and no longer owned it. The court explained that a patent-infringement plaintiff must own the patent and gave Yufa 14 days to respond to the court’s plan to dismiss the complaint.
Yufa’s response did not address his ownership. Judge Thomas S. Hixson dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because Yufa admitted he no longer owned the patent and amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Yufa v. Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc. · No. 3:09-cv-00968
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
Alexandr L. Yufa, representing himself, filed the case against Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc. He alleged that Lighthouse infringed Patent No. 6,346,983, concerning particle detectors and reference voltage comparators. The case had been stayed since January 9, 2015, while four of Yufa’s other cases involving the same patent were resolved.
On September 12, 2019, Yufa filed a notice stating that he had assigned the patent in compliance with an order in a related proceeding and therefore no longer owned it.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that a patent-infringement complaint requires the plaintiff to own the patent. It notified Yufa that it intended to dismiss the complaint on its own initiative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, and gave him 14 days to submit a written opposition.
Yufa’s response did not address whether he owned the patent. The court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Yufa admitted that he did not own Patent No. 6,346,983.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED Yufa’s complaint. It also ordered dismissal WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, finding that amendment would be futile because Yufa no longer owned the patent. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson on November 20, 2019.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.