Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—O1231—SLR Document 46 Filed O4/13/2005 Page1 0f3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
VERSUS TECHNOLOGY INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civ. No. 04-1231-SLR
)
RADIANSE INC., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
1. Introduction. On September 3, 2004, plaintiff Versus
Technology, Inc. sued defendant Radianse, alleging infringement
of four patents owned by or exclusively licensed to plaintiff.
(D.I. I) Defendant filed an answer which included a counterclaim
alleging tortious interference with economic relations based on
plaintiff’s alleged enforcement of the patents. (D.I. 5) On
November 8, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s
counterclaim. (D.I. 8) On November I2, 2004, defendant filed an
amended counterclaim, which addressed the arguments included in
plaintiff's motion to dismiss.l (D.I. I2) Currently before the
I Plaintiff presented two arguments in its motion to
dismiss. First, plaintiff argued that federal law preempts
defendant’s state law counterclaim unless defendant claimed that
plaintiff's communications to customers and prospective customers
were made in bad faith. (D.I. 9 at 4). Defendant addressed this
argument by claiming in its amended counterclaim that plaintiff
made allegations of infringement to defendant’s actual and
prospective customers in bad faith. (D I. I2 at 3) Plaintiff’s
second argument was that defendant failed to state a claim for
tortious interference with economic relations because it did not

Case 1:04-cv—O1231—SLR Document 46 Filed O4/13/2005 Page 2 of 3
court is plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant's original
counterclaim. (D.I. 8) For the reasons set forth below, the
court denies plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.
2. Background. Plaintiff and defendant both make, use,
and sell indoor locating systems for use in the health care
industry. (D.I. 1, 5, 9, 12) Plaintiff is the assignee of
United States Patent No. 6,154,139 (“the ‘139 patent"). (D.I. 1,
ex. D) Plaintiff also claims to be the owner or exclusive
licensee of United States Patent Nos. 5,027,314 (“the *314
patent") and 5,572,195 (“the ‘195 patent"), and United States
Reissue Patent No. 36,791 (“the ‘791 patent"). (D.I. 2-3)
Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging infringement of these patents.
(D.I. 1) Defendant alleges that between February and June 2004,
plaintiff approached numerous entities that plaintiff knew to be
defendant’s customers and potential customers including, but not
limited to, PeriOptimum, Pinnacle Health Group, Cerner
Corporation, and Four Rivers Software, and told them that
defendant infringed plaintiff’s patents and that they should not
buy from defendant for these reasons, (D 1. 12 at 3)
3. Discussion. when a party files an amended pleading,
identify the name of the customers or potential customers
underlying the economic relationships with which plaintiff
allegedly interfered. (D I. 9 at 6) Defendant addressed this
argument by claiming that plaintiff interfered with defendant's
economic relationships with PeriOptimum, Pinnacle Health Group,
Cerner Corporation, and Four Rivers Software. (D.I. 12 at 3)
2

Case 1:04-cv—O1231—SLR Document 46 Filed O4/13/2005 Page 3 of 3
the opposing party “shall plead in response to [the] amended
pleading .... " Fed. R. Civ. P. l5(a). The Third Circuit has
made it clear that “[a]n amended complaint supercedes the
original version in providing the blueprint for the future course
of a lawsuit.” Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276
(3d Cir. 2002); see also 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s
Federal Practice § l5.l7[3] (3d ed. 2005) (“An amended pleading
that is complete in itself and does not reference or adopt any
portion of the prior pleading supercedes the prior pleading ”).
This court has held that where a party filed an amended
complaint, a motion to dismiss the original complaint was
rendered moot. Standard Chlorine, Inc. v. Sinibaldi, 821 F.
Supp. 232, 239-40 (D. Del. 1992). The court finds nothing to
distinguish these cases, involving motions to dismiss complaints,
from the present matter, involving a motion to dismiss a
counterclaim. Consequently, defendant's filing of an amended
counterclaim rendered plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the original
counterclaim moot, and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is denied.
4. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above, at
Wilmington this 13th day of April, 2005,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant's
counterclaim (D.I. 8) is denied.
3