Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC

Background

Covet & Mane, LLC brought claims involving hair extensions against Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC. Covet & Mane sought, among other relief, a declaration that it did not infringe Invisible Bead Extensions’ intellectual-property rights, cancellation of those rights, and damages based on alleged anticompetitive and fraudulent conduct. Invisible Bead Extensions also asserted counterclaims.

Covet & Mane moved to file a second amended complaint after the deadline in the scheduling order. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the motion in part, allowing Covet & Mane to add claims challenging Invisible Bead Extensions’ patent and trademark rights and to add McKenzie Turley, Kitsune Hair Co., LLC, and Cassadi Currier as defendants. Judge Lehrburger recommended denying leave to add a product- and brand-disparagement claim because the proposed claim would be futile, meaning it could not succeed as pleaded.

Invisible Bead Extensions objected to the portions of Judge Lehrburger’s decision allowing the patent and trademark claims. It argued that a promise not to sue made Covet & Mane’s patent claims moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute, and that Covet & Mane had not shown the diligence required to amend its complaint after the scheduling deadline.

Patent-related objections

The court reviewed the portions allowing amendment for clear error, which means a serious mistake apparent from the record. It held that Judge Lehrburger properly considered whether the earlier promise not to sue covered future activity, Covet & Mane’s customers and partners, and possible claims for helping or encouraging infringement. The court concluded that Judge Lehrburger did not clearly err in finding that the earlier promise did not eliminate the court’s authority to hear the patent claims.

Invisible Bead Extensions later submitted a broader revised promise not to sue. The court stated that the revised promise was not properly before it in the review of the amendment decision because it was new evidence that had not been presented to Judge Lehrburger. The court therefore declined to consider the revised promise in deciding whether to allow the amendment and stated that it would be considered in connection with Invisible Bead Extensions’ separate motion to dismiss.

Trademark-related objections

The court agreed that Covet & Mane had not shown diligence concerning the additional trademark claims because the relevant trademark had been part of the lawsuit from the beginning. But the court held that Judge Lehrburger acted within his broad discretion by allowing the amendment anyway. The court relied on the absence of prejudice to Invisible Bead Extensions, the fact that discovery had already addressed the subject, and the efficiency of resolving the related claims in the same lawsuit rather than requiring a separate case.

Product-disparagement claim and disposition

Neither party objected to Judge Lehrburger’s recommendation denying leave to add the product- and brand-disparagement claim. The court therefore adopted that recommendation in its entirety. The second amended complaint nevertheless included the claim, so the court dismissed Covet & Mane’s product-disparagement claim with prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entry for the motion to amend.

The court’s order did not decide the separate motion to dismiss based on the revised promise not to sue. Its ruling addressed the objections to the amendment decision and the unopposed recommendation concerning the product-disparagement claim.