Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc.
2:13-cv-01758
D.N.J.Nov 8, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs allege that defendant Tristar infringed six patents relating to expandable/retractable garden hoses, specifically the "XHose" (Plaintiffs) and the "Flex-Able Hose" (Tristar).
- The case has a long procedural history with several amended complaints, and has been pending for over eleven years, with multiple related patent actions and prior attempts at amendment.
- On November 6, 2015, the Fifth Amended Complaint (current operative complaint) was filed. The deadline to amend pleadings was set for January 8, 2016.
- Plaintiffs sought to further amend the complaint and infringement contentions in June 2024 to add factual developments, new parties (including Trend Makers, LLC), and new allegedly infringing products.
- Defendant opposed the amendments, arguing lack of diligence, futility, bad faith, undue delay, and prejudice. The court denied the motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to Amend (Rule 16 Good Cause) | Seeks to update complaint due to new facts, parties, and products | No diligence; amendments years after deadline; delay prejudices Tristar | Denied; no good cause for late amendment |
| Leave to Amend (Rule 15 Undue Delay/Prejudice) | Updating claims reflects changed facts, won't unduly delay or prejudice | Further amendment causes delay, prejudice, extensive new discovery | Denied; amendment would cause undue delay and unfair prejudice |
| Joinder of Trend Makers (Rules 19, 20) | Trend Makers is Tristar’s alter ego, necessary for full relief | Not indispensable; new party would require new discovery and be unfair | Denied; joinder is not required/permissive under present circumstances |
| Amend Infringement Contentions | Seeks to update contentions to match new factual developments | Untimely; no diligence, expanding case scope too late | Denied; no diligence, tracks denial of complaint amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Dole v. Acro Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484 (3d Cir. 1990) (Liberal approach to amendments under Rule 15)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (When leave to amend should be denied)
- Cureton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 252 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2001) (Factors for considering undue delay)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (Permissive joinder under Rule 20)