Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.

S.D. California

Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.

DecidedFebruary 27, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-01958

StatusUnknown

This text of Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. (Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ALLELE BIOTECHNOLOGY AND Case No.: 20-cv-01958-H-AGS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a 9 California corporation, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 10 MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Plaintiff,

11 v. [Doc. No. 24.] 12 PFIZER, INC., a Delaware corporation; 13 BIONTECH SE, a German company; BIONTECH US, INC., a Delaware 14 corporation; and DOES 1-30, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed 18 a complaint for patent infringement against Defendants Pfizer, Inc., BioNTech SE, and 19 BioNTech US, Inc, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,221,221. (Doc. No. 1, 20 Compl.) On February 8, 2021, Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 22 24.) A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for March 15, 2021 at 10:30 23 a.m. 24 On February 25, 2021, in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, 25 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants. (Doc. No. 29, FAC.) See 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); see Sanford v. Motts, 258 F. 3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2001) 27 (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) gives a plaintiff one opportunity to amend as of right.”). In light of 28 the filing of the amended complaint, the Court denies as moot Defendants’ motion to 1 || dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Defendants moving to dismiss the first amended 2 ||complaint. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 3 || (“It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, 4 || the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ ... Consequently, the Plaintiff's Second 5 || Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the First Amended 6 ||Complaint ceased to exist. Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the 7 || Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the 8 ||motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot... .” (citations omitted)). The March 9 || 15, 2021 hearing date is vacated. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATED: February 26, 2021 | | \ual |. | | | 12 MARILYN ©. HUF F, Distri ge 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ALLELE BIOTECHNOLOGY AND Case No.: 20-cv-01958-H-AGS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a 9 California corporation, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 10 MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Plaintiff,

11 v. [Doc. No. 24.] 12 PFIZER, INC., a Delaware corporation; 13 BIONTECH SE, a German company; BIONTECH US, INC., a Delaware 14 corporation; and DOES 1-30, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed 18 a complaint for patent infringement against Defendants Pfizer, Inc., BioNTech SE, and 19 BioNTech US, Inc, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,221,221. (Doc. No. 1, 20 Compl.) On February 8, 2021, Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 22 24.) A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for March 15, 2021 at 10:30 23 a.m. 24 On February 25, 2021, in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, 25 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants. (Doc. No. 29, FAC.) See 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); see Sanford v. Motts, 258 F. 3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2001) 27 (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) gives a plaintiff one opportunity to amend as of right.”). In light of 28 the filing of the amended complaint, the Court denies as moot Defendants’ motion to 1 || dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Defendants moving to dismiss the first amended 2 ||complaint. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 3 || (“It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, 4 || the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ ... Consequently, the Plaintiff's Second 5 || Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the First Amended 6 ||Complaint ceased to exist. Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the 7 || Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the 8 ||motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot... .” (citations omitted)). The March 9 || 15, 2021 hearing date is vacated. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATED: February 26, 2021 | | \ual |. | | | 12 MARILYN ©. HUF F, Distri ge 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allele-biotechnology-and-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-pfizer-inc-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack