DIOPSYS, INC. v. KONAN MEDICAL USA, INC., 2:15-cv-05882

Diopsys sued Konan Medical and two individuals for alleged infringement of the ‘162 patent based on Konan’s EvokeDx visual electrophysiology device and later sought to add claims for infringement of the ‘795 and ‘189 patents, copyright and trademark infringement, and New Jersey product disparagement.
Early proceedings were marked by stipulations that delayed activity through late 2015, discovery disputes (including with third parties), and disagreement over inspection access to a Konan EvokeDx unit.
In November 2016 Diopsys obtained a used EvokeDx for examination and, combined with partial source-code disclosures and sensor review, concluded additional patent and copyright violations; trademark allegations matured in 2016.
Diopsys moved for leave to file a second amended complaint in March 2017; Konan opposed on grounds of futility, undue delay, prejudice, and lack of jurisdiction.
The magistrate judge applied Rule 15(a) liberal amendment standard and denied Defendants’ claims of undue delay and prejudice, finding delays attributable to stipulations and legitimate discovery disputes.
The court found sufficient allegations of personal, general, and specific jurisdiction over Konan (and jurisdiction over Hu), supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and adequate pleading of a copyright claim at this stage; it granted leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment should be allowed under Rule 15(a)	Leave should be granted because new claims arose from post-complaint inspection and discovery; delay was justified by stipulations and disputes	Motion tactical; amendments cause delay, prejudice, and inefficiency	Granted — no undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice shown; liberal Rule 15 standard applies
Personal jurisdiction over Konan and Hu for new claims	Court has general & specific jurisdiction based on Konan’s commercial activities in NJ, interactive website, software distribution; Hu is NJ resident	Lack of personal jurisdiction over Konan for the additional claims; pendent personal jurisdiction disputed	Granted — allegations suffice for general and specific jurisdiction; defendants have purposefully availed and litigated in forum
Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law product disparagement claim	State claim arises from same nucleus of operative facts and thus is pendent to federal patent claims	Supplemental jurisdiction inappropriate	Granted — 28 U.S.C. § 1367 supports supplemental jurisdiction here
Sufficiency of copyright claim pleading	Allegations of misappropriation and substantially similar use of source code are sufficient at pleading stage	Copyright claim inadequately pleaded	Granted — court finds pleading adequate to survive futility challenge

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors allowing denial of leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility)
Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484 (3d Cir. 1990) (liberal approach to amendments to decide claims on the merits)
Boileau v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 730 F.2d 929 (3d Cir. 1984) (policy favoring amendment of pleadings)
Adams v. Gould Inc., 739 F.2d 858 (3d Cir. 1984) (delay alone does not require denial; focus on motive and prejudice)
Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2010) (amendment is futile if it fails to state a claim)
In re Merck & Co. Sec., Derivative, & ERISA Litig., 493 F.3d 393 (3d Cir. 2007) (standards for futility review)
Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2000) (futility assessed under Rule 12(b)(6)-type standard)
In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (pleading standards related to futility)
Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (test for specific jurisdiction and purposeful direction)