Schei v. AT&T Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-00718
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Schei v. AT&T, Judge Failla granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and denied their reconsideration motion as moot.
The ruling directly affected Network Apps, LLC, Kyle Schei, and John Wantz by allowing them to file an amended complaint, and affected AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc. by requiring them to respond to that amended complaint. It did not decide whether the proposed claims would succeed.
What happened
In Network Apps, LLC, Kyle Schei, and John Wantz v. AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc., the plaintiffs asked to file an amended complaint after the court dismissed their contract and patent-infringement claims but allowed their inventorship claim to continue. They also asked the court to reconsider that earlier decision.
The plaintiffs said an amended complaint would add facts about their technology and clarify that their contract claims concerned separate contractual obligations, not the defendants’ patent applications. The defendants opposed amendment. The court said the proposed changes were not clearly futile and that the plaintiffs had not previously had the benefit of the court’s explanation of the pleading problems.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the motion for leave to amend and denied the motion for reconsideration as moot. The plaintiffs were ordered to file their amended complaint by March 4, 2024, and the defendants were ordered to answer or otherwise respond by April 5, 2024.
The detailed version
- Schei v. AT&T Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00718
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs originally asserted state-law breach-of-contract claims, patent-infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and a claim seeking correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256. On March 22, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the contract and patent-infringement claims without leave to amend and denied dismissal of the inventorship claim.
The plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. While that motion was pending, they separately sought permission under Rule 15(a)(2) to file an amended complaint. The opinion addresses both motions.
Motion to Amend
Rule 15(a)(2) generally provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court explained that amendment may be denied when it would be futile, meaning the proposed claims could not survive a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argued that an amended complaint would provide additional information about the uniqueness and technology of their invention and would clarify the factual basis for their contract claims.
The court found that the proposed amendment would not be futile. Additional allegations about whether the technology was state of the art and not merely an abstract idea could provide facts relevant to the patent-infringement claim. Clarifying that the contract claims involved separate, divisible breaches could also affect the defendants’ argument that those claims were untimely. The court expressly took no position on whether the amended claims would ultimately survive a motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Because amendment made the reconsideration motion unnecessary, the court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as moot. The plaintiffs had to file the amended complaint by March 4, 2024; the defendants had to answer or otherwise respond by April 5, 2024.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.