Klein v. Cultured Gourmet, LLC

Background

This patent-infringement action concerns a design for vegetable-fermenting kitchenware. Cultured Gourmet filed its original answer on October 27, 2017. After the litigation was stayed for almost two years while the Patent and Trademark Office conducted an ex parte reexamination of the patent, Cultured Gourmet moved for leave to file an amended answer.

The proposed amended answer added an affirmative defense of unclean hands and an allegation supporting Cultured Gourmet’s existing affirmative defense of inequitable conduct.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows a party to amend its pleadings without court permission within 21 days after service. After that period, the party must obtain the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission. Courts should freely grant permission when justice requires it.

The court considered bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, whether the amendment would be futile, and whether the plaintiff had previously amended the complaint. The court explained that prejudice carries the greatest weight and that the party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice. Without that showing, there is a presumption favoring amendment unless the other factors strongly weigh against it.

Analysis

The court found that Klein failed to overcome the presumption favoring amendment. Cultured Gourmet had identified reasons supporting amendment, including the absence of evidence of bad faith, the timing of the request, the fact that discovery had just begun, and the proposed allegations’ support for the unclean-hands and inequitable-conduct defenses. Cultured Gourmet also had not previously sought to amend its answer.

Klein challenged several defenses, arguing that Cultured Gourmet was barred from asserting them because of statements allegedly made in an earlier related proceeding, that the unclean-hands defense was improper in a patent case, and that the invalidity defense was not specific enough. The court held that Klein’s opposition did not address the factors governing leave to amend and, most importantly, did not show prejudice. The court also noted that some challenged defenses appeared unaffected by the proposed amendments. It did not resolve the merits of Klein’s criticisms, explaining that this motion was not the proper vehicle for raising them.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted Cultured Gourmet’s motion for leave to file an amended answer. The court ordered Cultured Gourmet to refile its proposed amended answer, which would become its operative amended answer.