Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:268
`
`
`
`Michael Bednarek (admitted pro hac vice)
`michael.bednarek@arlaw.com
`ADAMS AND REESE LLP
`20 F Street NW, Suite 500
`Washington, District of Columbia 20001
`Telephone: (202) 478-1216
`Facsimile: (202) 478-1238
`
`Ben M. Davidson (SBN 181464)
`bdavidson@davidson-lawfirm.com
`DAVIDSON LAW GROUP, ALC
`11377 West Olympic Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90064
`Telephone: (310) 473-2300
`Facsimile: (310) 473-2941
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Everlight Electronics Co.
`and Everlight Americas, Inc.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`[Filed concurrently with Notice Motion to
`Dismiss, Request for Judicial Notice,
`Declaration of Ben M. Davidson in
`Support, and [Proposed] Order]
`
`Hon. James V. Selna
`
`
`Date:
`
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`
`November 13, 2017
`1:30 pm
`10C
`
`1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY
`SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., AND EVERLIGHT
`AMERICAS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:269
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Claim for Direct Infringement Of The ’771 Patent is
`
`Plaintiff’s Claim for Direct Infringement Of The ‘087 Patent is
`
`Plaintiff’s Claim for Direct Infringement Of The ‘787 Patent is
`
`Plaintiff’s Claim for Direct Infringement Of The ‘486 Patent is
`
`
`
`i
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`“Defendants” and Fails to State Which Allegation Relates to Which
`Company, Thus Failing to Properly Allege Infringement or Personal
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s “Illustrative Example” Fails To Provide A Factual
`Basis For Alleging Infringement Against Scores of Other
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 2
`Pleading standards under the federal rules .......................................... 2
`A.
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 3
`A. DSS Improperly Conflates Two Distinct Corporate Entities as
`Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 3
`Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead Direct Infringement ..................... 8
`B.
`1.
`Products and Product Series ...................................................... 8
`2.
`Deficient and Implausible ....................................................... 11
`3.
`Deficient and Implausible ....................................................... 14
`4.
`Deficient and Implausible ....................................................... 15
`5.
`Deficient and Implausible ....................................................... 16
`C.
`Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead Induced Infringement ................ 17
`D.
`Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead Willful Infringement ................. 22
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 24
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:270
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc.
`368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................. 5
`
`
`Alsop v. Carolina Custom Prods.
` No. EDCV 07-212-VAP 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65679,
`
`at *21 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2007) ........................................................................ 6
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Hilton Resorts Corp.
` No. 11-CV-1810 JLS (NLS), 2013 WL 12071642,
`
`at *8-9 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2013) ...................................................................... 21
`
`Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n
` No. 2:15-CV-478, 2016 WL 1253533, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2016) ....... 11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) .................................................................... 3, 8, 20, 23
`
`
`Astornet Techs. Inc. v. BAE Sys., Inc.
`
`802 F.3d 1271, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 17
`
`Atlas IP, L.L.C. v. Exelon Corp.
`189 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772, 774-76 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ........................................... 12
`
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.
`552 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 6
`
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ........................................................................... passim
`
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
`471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) ............................ 6
`
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Big Fish Games, Inc.
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115594, at *44 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2016) ..................... 24
`
`
`Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23842, (D. Az. 2017) ............................................ 10, 24
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman
`134 S. Ct. 746, 761 (2014) .................................................................................. 6
`
`
`Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111689, at *3, *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) ....... 11, 13
`
`
`Digital Reg of Tex., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93814, 2013 WL 3361241, at *4 (2013) ...................... 9
`
`
`Dole Food Co. v. Watts
`303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`ii
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:271
`
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111689, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) ................. 13
`
`
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle
`340 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 6
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87657, at *15 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) ...................... 24
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.
` No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44038,
`
`at *18 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) .......................................................................... 8
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
`563 U.S. 754, 764, 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2068 (2011) ....................................... 18, 20
`
`
`GN Resound A/S v. Callpod, Inc.
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40402, 2013 WL 1190651,
`
`
`at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013) .......................................................................... 9
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown
`564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011) ....................................................... 6
`
`
`Grecia v. VUDU, Inc.
` No. C-14-1220-EMC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16256,
`
`at *29 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015) ......................................................................... 20
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
`136 S. Ct. 1923, 1935 (2016) ...................................................................... 23, 24
`
`
`Hebbe v. Pliler
`627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................. 3
`
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC
`783 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 17
`
`
`Jenkins v. LogicMark, LLC
` Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH, 2017 U.S. Dist.
` LEXIS 10975, at *7 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2017) .................................................. 10
`
`Joy Tech., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.
`6 F.3d 770, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................... 13
`
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`545 F.3d 1340, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................ 20, 21
`
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc.
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 804 (E.D. Va. 2014) ........................................................... 12
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc.
`755 F.3d 899, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 20
`
`
`Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.
`572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`iii
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:272
`
`
`MyMedicalRecords, Inc. v. Jardogs, LLC
`1 F. Supp. 3d 1020, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19142,
`
`
`at *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014) ....................................................................... 19
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Etron Tech. Am. Inc.
` No. CV 8:16-00599, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188041,
`
`at *10 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2016) ..................................................... 10, 12, 13, 14
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l., Inc.
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15728 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) ................................... 23
`
`
`Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.
`566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 21
`
`
`Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp.
`265 F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................ 5
`
`
`Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70614, at *18 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) .................... 19
`
`Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.
`105 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................... 6
`
`
`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC
` No. SACV 12-01861 JGB, 2014 WL 12589111,
`
`at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014) ......................................................................... 21
`
`TCL Communications Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktenbologet
` LM Ericsson No., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197559,
`
`*28 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2014) ............................................................... 19, 20, 22
`
`TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc.
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123516 *7-8 ................................................................ 14
`
`
`Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Tropical Flooring
` No. CV 14-02209 BRO (SSX), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85955,
`
`at *17 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) ................................................................ 22, 23
`
`Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp.
` No. 3:13-cv-1278-GPC-JMA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151761,
`
`at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) .......................... 20, 21
`
`Varian Med. Sys. v. Elekta AB
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91226, at *27 (D. Del. July 12, 2016) ........................ 24
`
`
`Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co.
`851 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................. 7
`
`
`World Traveling Fools, L.L.C. v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc.
` No. 11-61670-CIV, 2014 WL 4102160, at *4, 2014
` U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114310, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2014) ............................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:273
`
`STATUTES
`RULES
`
`
`
`28 U.S.C. § 284 ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) .................................................................................... 1, 2, 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .................................................................................. 1, 8, 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:274
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Defendants Everlight Electronics Co.,
`(“Everlight Electronics”) and Everlight Americas,
`Inc.
`(“Everlight
`Ltd.
`Americas”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move to dismiss Counts I-IV asserted by
`Plaintiff Document Security Systems, Inc. (“DSS” or “Plaintiff”) in its First
`Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. 30. The allegations do not satisfy the
`requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus fail
`to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.
`DSS has sued two defendants in this case, and each of them is entitled to
`know the basis on which it has been sued. Everlight Electronics is a Taiwanese
`corporation with offices in Taiwan. Everlight Americas is a Delaware corporation
`with an office in Ontario, California and a U.S. website. Avoiding its burden of
`showing through facts how each defendant allegedly infringes, DSS conflates the
`two companies throughout the FAC as a single entity, assuming without any
`factual basis that the American and Taiwanese company are one and the same.
`DSS makes all of its allegations against “Defendants,” “its United States
`customers” and “its United States website,” deliberately avoiding any allegation to
`specify which Defendant has taken which action.
`The FAC also fails to meet the Iqbal/Twombly “factual plausibility”
`standard for other reasons because it fails to provide sufficient factual matter to
`state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face for direct, induced or willful
`infringement. DSS does not even try to support its direct infringement allegations
`against the vast majority of the accused products it lists. Instead DSS provides
`direct infringement allegations for only a single product as an “illustrative
`example” without alleging, let alone showing through facts, how this example is
`representative of the structure of all the other accused products. Even the few
`“illustrative examples” provided by DSS fail to show how each claim limitation is
`met.
`
`1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:275
`
`Furthermore, to be liable for inducing infringement and for willful
`infringement, a defendant must have had knowledge of the infringement before
`being sued. DSS, however, merely points to its own conclusory complaint on the
`same patents that were filed in another district (an improper venue) before
`dismissing and immediately refiling the complaint in this district. Moreover, DSS
`effectively concedes that it has no factual basis to allege willfulness now, but
`nevertheless seeks to give itself leave to pursue a finding of willfulness at trial
`based on facts DSS might learn in discovery.
`As explained below, the Court should dismiss DSS’s claims for direct
`infringement, induced infringement and willful infringement of all four asserted
`patents.
`II. BACKGROUND
`DSS has recently purchased a portfolio of patents relating to LED
`technology and is now asserting the patents-in-suit against Defendants. See FAC,
`¶ 2. DSS also has asserted the patents against five separate sets of operating
`companies using allegations that do not take into account the activities of the
`particular defendants or the structures of their products.
`DSS’s FAC against Everlight Americas and Everlight Electronics is replete
`with conclusory allegations that were recycled from DSS’s complaints against
`defendants in these other cases. As a result, the allegations against defendants fail
`in numerous respects to comport with the legal requirements for patent
`infringement pleadings.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Pleading standards under the federal rules
`A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
`
`that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and “give the
`defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`544, 555 (2007) (internal citation omitted). To satisfy this requirement, “a
`2
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:276
`
`complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
`to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
`(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-70). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
`plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
`inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
`
`Although a court must accept “well-pleaded factual allegations as true” on a
`motion to dismiss, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678), “bare assertions . . . amount[ing] to nothing more than a
`‘formulaic recitation of the elements’ . . . are not entitled to an assumption of
`truth,” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In addition, “[t]hread bare recitals of the elements of
`a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,
`556 U.S. at 678. In evaluating the sufficiency of allegations, the Court should
`apply “judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. DSS Improperly Conflates Two Distinct Corporate Entities as
`“Defendants” and Fails to State Which Allegation Relates to
`Which Company, Thus Failing to Properly Allege Infringement
`or Personal Jurisdiction
`DSS has sued two distinct corporate entities, Everlight Electronics (a
`Taiwanese corporation) and Everlight Americas (a Delaware corporation), but it
`conflates them as a single entity by referring to them throughout its pleadings as
`“Defendants” operating “its” website to induce infringement by “its United States
`customers.” See, e.g., FAC (Davidson Decl., Ex. 1), ¶¶23, 36, 52, 65. Thus,
`without any supporting facts, DSS makes all of its allegations against
`“Defendants,” and avoids stating which of them is alleged to have taken which
`action.
`
`3
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 10 of 31 Page ID
` #:277
`
`
`
`During the parties’ meet-and-confer discussion, counsel for DSS confirmed
`that DSS does not contend that each Defendant takes every action attributed to
`“Defendants” collectively. This admission confirmed, as is clear from the FAC
`itself, that DSS is requiring the Court (and the Defendants) to speculate regarding
`the basis of the claims against each defendant and which allegations apply to
`which defendant. Just one of the many examples of this is that Defendants have
`no way of knowing which of them is alleged to have the specific intent to induce
`infringement because the FAC vaguely alleges that “customers” who purchased
`LEDs from one of
`the Defendants “overseas” allegedly built products
`incorporating those LEDs and then imported them into the United States. See e.g.,
`FAC, ¶24. One might speculate that this intent is alleged against Everlight
`Americas, whose website DSS identifies in support of its inducement claims (id.),
`but it is not clear at all that Everlight Americas is alleged to have sold the LEDs
`“overseas” in the first place, or that Everlight Americas’ customers imported
`anything into the United States. By treating Defendants as a single entity, DSS
`glosses over its inability to allege that either Defendant was responsible for
`infringement by inducing overseas customers to manufacture their own products
`overseas and import them to the United States so as to infringe the patents-in-suit.
`For similar reasons, the FAC is impermissibly ambiguous and speculative
`as to the direct infringement claims. DSS has not pled any facts to support
`treating these two different corporations as a single entity. It has made the
`conclusory allegation that Everlight Electronics “through its subsidiary, Defendant
`Everlight Americas, Inc., imports, sells and/or offers to sell LED products [in] the
`State of California and elsewhere in the United States.” FAC, ¶ 3. DSS has not
`alleged facts to support imputing the alleged importation and sales of Everlight
`Americas to Everlight Electronics.
` For similar reasons, because it has treated Everlight Electronics and
`Everlight Americas as a single entity in conclusory fashion, DSS fails to meet the
`4
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 11 of 31 Page ID
` #:278
`
`
`
`standard for pleading personal jurisdiction against Everlight Electronics at least
`with respect to the induced infringement claims. Personal jurisdiction must exist
`for each claim asserted against a defendant. Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl.
`Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004). See also Pieczenik v.
`Dyax Corp., 265 F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (plaintiffs failed to satisfy
`burden of proof to show that court had personal jurisdiction with respect to
`inducement claim based on contacts with forum).
`Here, DSS has alleged personal jurisdiction over “Defendants” generally by
`alleging that they have committed acts of infringement in this District and “by
`establishing a regular and established place of business within this District at 4237
`East Airport Dr., Ontario, CA 91761.” FAC, ¶6. This is Everlight Americas’
`address, as confirmed by DSS’s reliance on what it calls the collective
`Defendants’ website—“its United States website” (emphasis added)—to claim
`that the collective “Defendants” have engaged in allegedly infringing activities.
`See, e.g., FAC, ¶ 23 (relying on purported advertising by Defendants to “its
`United States customers” (emphasis added) at
` https://everlightamericas.com/plcc/2519/eapl3232rgba0.html. The website relied
`on by DSS in its Complaint is an “everlightamericas.com” website, not an
`Everlight Electronics website. Moreover, the website, which is incorporated and
`made part of the Complaint, shows that the Ontario address cited by DSS belongs
`to Everlight Americas. See https://everlightamericas.com/content/9/Offices. :
`
`
`See Request For Judicial Notice filed herewith, Ex. 3. Indeed, as even DSS
`admits, only Everlight Americas “is registered to do business in the State of
`California.” Id. DSS has alleged no facts to show that what is identified as an
`
`5
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 12 of 31 Page ID
` #:279
`
`
`
`American company’s website, with an address in Ontario, is actually the website
`of the Taiwanese company Everlight Electronics.
`
`The United States Supreme Court has clarified that a foreign corporation is
`subject to general personal jurisdiction only if its “affiliations with the State are so
`‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum
`State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 761 (2014) (citing Goodyear
`Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851
`(2011)). Further, “in a transnational context, as is the case here, federal courts
`must also heed principles of international comity and should not employ an
`expansive view of general jurisdiction.” World Traveling Fools, L.L.C. v.
`Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., No. 11-61670-CIV, 2014 WL 4102160, at *4, 2014
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114310, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2014) (Moreno, J).
`
`“[I]n order to establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant, each of the
`following must be shown, ‘(1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities at
`residents of the forum state, (2) the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's
`activities with the forum state, and (3) assertion of personal jurisdiction is
`reasonable and fair.’” Alsop v. Carolina Custom Prods., No. EDCV 07-212-VAP
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65679, at *21 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2007) (quoting Elecs.
`for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); see also
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`“The exercise of specific jurisdiction ‘is consistent with due process’ only where
`‘the defendant’s suit-related conduct . . . create[s] a substantial connection with
`the forum state.’” Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp., 105 F. Supp. 3d 981,
`1021 (N.D. Cal. 2015); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,
`474, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) (“the constitutional touchstone
`remains whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the
`forum state”). In the Ninth Circuit, courts cannot exercise specific jurisdiction
`over a non-resident defendant unless “the defendant either ‘purposefully directs’
`6
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 13 of 31 Page ID
` #:280
`
`
`
`its activities or ‘purposefully avails’ itself of the benefits afforded by the forum’s
`laws.” Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir. 2017)
`(quoting Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002)).
`
`In Williams, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Daimler Court’s rejection
`of the Ninth Circuit’s agency test in the general jurisdiction context also applies in
`the context of specific jurisdiction: “[T]he Daimler Court’s criticism of the Unocal
`standard found fault with the standard’s own internal logic, and therefore applies
`with equal force regardless of whether the standard is used to establish general or
`specific jurisdiction.” Williams, 851 F.3d at 1024. The Ninth Circuit thus refused
`to “credit” conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts, that a parent was
`responsible for its subsidiary’s actions because “Defendants . . . were the agents or
`employees of each other and were acting at all times within the scope of such
`agency and employment.” Id. at n. 5.
`
`Here, DSS has not alleged that Everlight Electronics has contacts with
`California that are relevant to the general jurisdiction inquiry. And DSS has not
`shown that the Court has specific jurisdiction over Everlight Electronics with
`regard to each claim. Rather than allege facts showing that Everlight Electronics
`and Everlight Americas are one and the same, DSS has assumed in conclusory
`fashion that Defendants are a single entity operating under “its United States
`website” to induce “its United States customers [to] infringe.” DSS therefore fails
`to meet its burden of showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
`Everlight Electronics, at a minimum as to its inducement claim, which specifically
`relies on activities (i.e., a website) of Everlight Americas. See, e.g., FAC, ¶23, 36,
`37, 38, 52, 53, 65, 66. DSS has failed to allege facts to show how Everlight
`Electronics, by exporting products “overseas,” or through Everlight Americas’
`United States website reaching United States customers, has conducted activities
`in the United States to knowingly cause customers in Califorrnia to infringe the
`patents-in-suit. As a result, DSS has failed to show that Everlight Electronics
`7
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 14 of 31 Page ID
` #:281
`
`
`
`purposefully directed its activities to residents of California or that exercising
`personal jurisdiction in this case would be fair and reasonable with respect to at
`least the inducement claims. The inducement claims against Everlight Electronics
`must therefore be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
`B.
`Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead Direct Infringement
`The FAC fails to meet the “factual plausibility” standard in several other
`respects. While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to survive a
`12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must provide grounds demonstrating its entitlement to
`relief. Again, the ambiguity resulting from DSS’s conflation of the defendants
`hinders assessment of the pleadings. The FAC asserts claims for infringement of
`four patents, including, for each patent, allegations of direct, induced, and willful
`infringement. With respect to direct infringement, inducement, and willful
`infringement, the FAC does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to
`relief that is plausible on its face.1
`
`1.
`Plaintiff’s “Illustrative Example” Fails To Provide A Factual
`Basis For Alleging Infringement Against Scores of Other
`Products and Product Series
`The direct infringement allegations in the FAC do not plausibly show
`infringement for the accused products. To adequately plead direct infringement,
`the law requires sufficient factual allegations from which the Court can plausibly
`infer that the accused products infringe each limitation of at least one asserted
`patent claim. The complaint cannot merely parrot the claim language while
`generally pointing to an accused product. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No.
`13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44038, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015)
`
`1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To do so, “the plaintiff must allege sufficient factual
`allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. Under
`Twombly and Iqbal, this threshold requires that the complaint contains “sufficient
`factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal,
`556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint will fail to state
`a claim if factual allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
`possibility of misconduct . . . .” Id. at 679.
`
`8
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS BY EVERLIGHT AMERICAS AND EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG Document 31-1 Filed 10/10/17 Page 15 of 31 Page ID
` #:282
`
`
`
`(plaintiff’s burden for infringement contentions “cannot be met simply by
`parroting claim language or referencing screenshots and/or website content.”). See
`also Digital Reg of Tex., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93814,
`2013 WL 3361241, at *4 (2013) (infringement content