Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:327
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Alexis Adian Smith, Bar No. 274429
`asmith@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071.2452
`Telephone: +1.213.489.3939
`Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`HIKVISION USA, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`HIKVISION USA, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`HIKVISION USA, INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND PARTIAL
`MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6);
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`Hearing Date: June 5, 2023
`Time: 1:30 PM
`Courtroom: 9B
`Judge: Hon. Cormac J. Carney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:328
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Hikvision USA, Inc. (“Hikvision”)
`will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order partially dismissing Plaintiff
`Network-1 Technologies, Inc.’s (“Network-1’s”) Amended Complaint for patent
`infringement (the “Amended Complaint,” Dkt. 25) pursuant to Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for: (1) indirect infringement of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (“’930 Patent”) and (2) willful infringement of the ’930
`Patent. This motion will be heard on Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:30 p.m., in
`Courtroom 9B of the above-entitled court, located at the Ronald Reagan Federal
`Building and United States Courthouse, 411 W. Fourth St., Santa Ana, California,
`92701, 9th floor, or at such other time as ordered by the Court.
`This motion is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that
`Network-1’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be
`granted with respect to indirect infringement and willful infringement because,
`among other things, Network-1 does not provide sufficient factual allegations of
`pre-expiration knowledge of the ’930 Patent or of the underlying alleged direct
`infringement using Hikvision’s products. Thus, Network-1’s claims for indirect
`and willful infringement should be dismissed.
`This motion is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and
`authorities, and upon such further evidence and argument submitted at or before the
`hearing in this matter.
`This motion is made following the conferences of counsel pursuant to L.R.
`7-3, the latest of which took place on March 14, 2023 by phone and April 10, 2023
`via email.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:329
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`May 4, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`JONES DAY
`
`By: /s/ Alexis A. Smith
`Alexis Adian Smith
`Attorneys for Defendant
`HIKVISION USA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:330
`
`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
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Page
`
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS .................................... 3
`II.
`III. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIRECT & WILLFUL
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT ........................................................................... 4
`A.
`Indirect Patent Infringement ................................................................. 4
`B. Willful Patent Infringement .................................................................. 5
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`The Indirect And Willful Infringement Claims Should Be
`Dismissed, Because Network-1 Does Not Allege It Gave
`Hikvision Pre-Expiration Notice Of The ’930 Patent Or Of
`Infringement. ......................................................................................... 6
`B. Network-1 Does Not Allege Sufficient Facts To Support A
`Plausible Claim For Indirect Infringement. .......................................... 8
`1.
`Network-1 Fails To Plausibly Allege That Hikvision Had
`The Required Knowledge Of The ’930 Patent Before It
`Expired. ....................................................................................... 9
`Network-1 Fails To Plausibly Allege That Hikvision Had
`Pre-Expiration Knowledge Of Infringement Of The ’930
`Patent. ....................................................................................... 17
`Network-1 Fails To Plausibly Allege Willful Blindness
`By Hikvision. ............................................................................ 18
`C. Network-1 Does Not Allege Sufficient Facts To Support A
`Plausible Claim For Willful Infringement. ......................................... 20
`D. Dismissal With Prejudice Is Warranted. ............................................. 21
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 22
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:331
`
`
`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 AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Adams v. Johnson,
`355 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 4
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................... passim
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.,
`782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 8
`
`BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch.
`Organisation,
`28 F.4th 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................... 3, 4, 20
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) .................................................................................... passim
`
`Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Nokia Corp.,
`No. 19-02190, 2020 WL 6126285 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2020) ................................ 7
`
`EON Corp.. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc.,
`802 F. Supp. 2d 527 (D. Del. 2011) ................................................................... 11
`
`Fayer v. Vaughn,
`649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 4
`
`GCP Applied Techs. Inc. v. AVM Indus., Inc.,
`No. 19-7475, 2020 WL 3964791 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) ............................... 14
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ..................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:332
`
`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 AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 22-07556, 2023 WL 2627016 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2023) ........................ 6, 18
`
`Helios Streaming, LLC v. Vudu, Inc.,
`No. 19-1792, 2021 WL 254069 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2021) ...................................... 3
`
`In re Impac Mortg. Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`554 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (Carney, J.) .......................................... 21
`
`In re Perle,
`725 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak,
`LLC, 783 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 19
`
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.,
`6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 4
`
`Litebook Co., Ltd. v. Verilux, Inc.,
`No. 22-01124, 2023 WL 2733463 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023) ................................ 8
`
`Malvern Panalytical Ltd v. Ta Instruments-Waters LLC,
`No. 19-CV-2157, 2021 WL 3856145 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2021) ......................... 19
`
`Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.,
`No. 19-1334, 2021 WL 2036671 (D. Del. May 20, 2021), R. & R.
`adopted in relevant part at 2021 WL 4350591 (D. Del. Sep. 24,
`2021) ................................................................................................................... 16
`
`Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.,
`303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 4
`
`MONEC Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
`897 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Del. 2012) ................................................. 11, 12, 16, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:333
`
`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 AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Network-1 v. Panasonic Holding Corp.,
`No. 22-cv-00430, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2022) ............................................. 6
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 12-1067, 2013 WL 444642 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) ............................ 11, 16
`
`Parity Networks, LLC v. Moxa Inc.,
`No. 20-698, 2020 WL 6064636 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020) ................................ 7
`
`Philips N.V. v. TTE Tech., Inc.,
`No. 20-01406, 2020 WL 13302815 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) ............................ 8
`
`Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC v. Vizio, Inc.,
`No. 18-1571, 2019 WL 3220016 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) ................................. 7
`
`PPG Indus. Ohio, Inc. v. Axalta Coating Sys., LLC,
`No. 21-346, 2022 WL 610740 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2022), R. & R.
`adopted at 2022 WL 611260 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) .................................. 10, 11
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`No. 13-02021, 2013 WL 5373305 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013) .................... 11, 15
`
`ReefEdge Networks, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`29 F. Supp. 3d 455 (D. Del. 2014) ..................................................................... 15
`
`Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 22-305, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 16921956 (D. Del. Nov.
`14, 2022) ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC,
`30 F.4th 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................... 19
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`591 F. Supp. 3d 638 (N.D. Cal. 2022), leave to appeal denied, 2022
`WL 1486359 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2022) ................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:334
`
`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 AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.,
`No. C 22-07611, --F. Supp. 3d --, 2023 WL 2562875 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 17, 2023) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Test Sys., Inc.,
`No. 20-2713, 2020 WL 8173024 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) ........................... 7, 20
`
`Valinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corp.,
`No. 16-1082, 2017 WL 5196379 (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2017), R. & R.
`adopted at 2018 WL 11013902 (D. Del. Jan. 10, 2018) .................................... 12
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 5
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Rule 8 ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`Rule 12(b)(6)........................................................................................................ 2, 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:335
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”) accuses Defendant
`Hikvision USA, Inc. (“Hikvision”) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (the
`“’930 Patent”), which expired more than three years ago on March 7, 2020.
`Network-1 asserts that sales of Hikvision’s allegedly infringing products began
`“around 2011.” Yet, Network-1 waited more than a decade—and 2 ½ years after
`the ’930 Patent expired—to ever notify Hikvision of any alleged infringement, via
`the filing of its Original Complaint (Dkt. 1) here. Network-1 has since tried to
`bolster its claims in an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 25), continuing to assert that
`Hikvision is liable for indirect and willful infringement. But even as amended, the
`Amended Complaint does not state plausible claims for either indirect or willful
`infringement.
`The indirect and willful infringement claims require Network-1 to plead and
`prove both that Hikvision knew of the ’930 Patent, and knew of infringement by its
`customers, before the ’930 Patent expired. Abundant case law establishes that the
`patent owner must at least plead notice of both was provided in a prior
`communication to the accused infringer in “almost all circumstances.” Here, it is
`undisputed that Network-1 never notified Hikvision of the ’930 Patent or the
`alleged infringement prior to patent expiration. And because Hikvision had no pre-
`expiration knowledge of the ’930 Patent, Hikvision could not have knowingly
`induced or contributed to direct infringement of the ’930 Patent by others, nor could
`Hikvision have willfully infringed a patent that it first learned about over 2 ½ years
`after the patent expired.
`Unable to plead that Network-1 gave actual notice of the ’930 Patent and the
`alleged infringement to Hikvision, Network-1 resorts to speculation. For example,
`Network-1 asserts that Hikvision must have had knowledge based on the ’930
`Patent being “widely known” and “highly publicized.” Network-1 further asserts
`knowledge based on Hikvision’s relationship with third-party chip manufacturers,
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:336
`
`
`hypothetical due diligence performed by Hikvision, and an allegation that former
`Hikvision employees worked at some point for third party licensees to the ’930
`Patent. But courts consistently and repeatedly reject patent owner attempts to plead
`pre-suit knowledge based on these kinds of speculative allegations.
`Accordingly, Network-1’s Amended Complaint fails to plausibly state claims
`for indirect or willful infringement, and those claims should be dismissed under
`Rule 12(b)(6).1
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`Hikvision is a small company headquartered in Southern California that was
`established in 2009. Its principal business is the distribution of video surveillance
`products to the United States market. Network-1 alleges that, around 2011,
`Hikvision began selling Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) products compliant with
`certain industry standards (IEEE 802.3af and 802.3at) that were used to infringe the
`method claims of the ’930 Patent. Dkt. 25, ¶¶ 2, 67, 82-89. Despite more than a
`decade of alleged infringement, Network-1 did not notify Hikvision of the ’930
`Patent or the alleged infringement of that patent until Network-1 filed its Original
`Complaint on November 3, 2022 (and long after the patent expired). At no time
`prior to filing its Original Complaint did Network-1 ever advise Hikvision of the
`’930 Patent or that Hikvision’s products were allegedly used to infringe that patent.
`After several discussions with Hikvision counsel regarding deficiencies in
`the Original Complaint (see Dkt. 23), Network-1 filed its Amended Complaint
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1 Although Network-1 also asserts direct infringement, Hikvision anticipates that
`resolution of the indirect infringement claims may very well resolve this case in its
`entirety. Network-1 only asserts method claims, which it acknowledges are
`practiced “when multiple components” assembled “in different remote locations” of
`end users “are configured to practice the claimed invention.” Dkt. 25, ¶ 90. Thus,
`the vast majority—if not the entirety—of Network-1’s damages claims would be
`based upon the alleged indirect infringement by Hikvision customers practicing the
`claimed methods. To the extent Network-1 asserts that Hikvision itself used the
`claimed method, any such claims would result in nominal or minimal damages, at
`most.
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:337
`
`
`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
`
`(Dkt. 25) on April 20, 2023. In its Amended Complaint, Network-1 alleges that
`Hikvision directly infringed the ’930 Patent, indirectly infringed by inducing
`infringement or contributing to infringement of the ’930 Patent by others, and that
`Hikvision’s infringement was willful. Id.
`However, Network-1’s Amended Complaint still fails to adequately plead
`Hikvision’s knowledge of the ’930 Patent or infringement of that patent, both of
`which are required to state a claim for indirect or willful infringement. With the
`new allegations, Network-1 asserts that because the ’930 Patent was purportedly
`“industry famous,” knowledge of the ’930 Patent should be imputed to Hikvision.
`Despite all the newly added verbiage, including the repetitive play-by-play of
`Network-1’s litigation history against other parties, the Amended Complaint still
`fails to plausibly allege that Hikvision itself had the requisite pre-expiration
`knowledge of the ’930 Patent and the alleged infringement. While Network-1’s
`Amended Complaint is significantly longer than the original, “the length of the
`pleading has no bearing on whether it is facially plausible.” Helios Streaming, LLC
`v. Vudu, Inc., No. 19-1792, 2021 WL 254069, at *7 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2021)
`(rejecting argument that claim was plausibly pleaded “because so many detailed
`paragraphs have been added since the original complaint”).
`II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
`To survive dismissal, a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim
`to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
`570 (2007). There is no plausibility “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
`court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Pleading facts that are “merely consistent with” liability
`does not meet the plausibility requirement, which “asks for more than a sheer
`possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678. “Factual allegations
`must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the
`assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true (even if doubtful in
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 3 -
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:338
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56 (citation and footnote omitted). If the
`plaintiff does not “nudge [its] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,
`[its] complaint must be dismissed.” Id. at 570.
`“[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient
`to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.
`2004). Thus, when a complaint sets forth legal conclusions, those conclusions need
`not be accepted as true at all. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 564–65. Further, the Court
`is not required to assume the truth of legal conclusions “merely because they are
`cast in the form of factual allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th
`Cir. 2011).
`III. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIRECT & WILLFUL
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`A.
`Indirect Patent Infringement
`Indirect infringement occurs when an accused infringer does not itself
`practice each and every element of a patent claim but rather (1) actively induces
`direct infringement by a third party under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); or (2) contributes to
`direct infringement by a third party under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). See Joy Techs., Inc.
`v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Both types of indirect infringement
`logically and necessarily require pleading that the alleged indirect infringer had
`(i) knowledge of the patent and also (ii) knowledge that some third party was
`infringing that patent prior to its expiration (i.e., at a time when infringement could
`still take place).
`1. Inducement. Inducement of infringement “requires knowledge of the
`patent in suit and knowledge of patent infringement.” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco
`Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639 (2015); see also Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v.
`Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“In order to succeed on a
`claim of inducement, the patentee must show, first that there has been direct
`infringement . . . and second that the alleged infringer knowingly induced
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:339
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement.”)
`(citation omitted).
`2. Contributory Infringement. “Like induced infringement, contributory
`infringement [under § 271(c)] requires knowledge of the patent in suit and
`knowledge of patent infringement.” Commil, 575 U.S. at 639. Indeed, § 271(c)
`expressly mandates that contributory infringement only applies to the sale of a
`“component . . . knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for
`use in infringement of such patent.”
`B. Willful Patent Infringement
`Just as with indirect infringement, a claim for willful infringement
`necessarily requires that the accused infringer had knowledge of the asserted patent
`at the time of the challenged conduct. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317,
`1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Knowledge of the patent alleged to be willfully infringed
`continues to be a prerequisite to enhanced damages.”). A willful infringement
`claim also requires, inter alia, that “the accused infringer had a specific intent to
`infringe at the time of the challenged conduct.” BASF Plant Sci., LP v.
`Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Organisation, 28 F.4th 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2022);
`see also WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1340 (“[T]he appropriate time frame for considering
`culpability is by assessing the infringer’s knowledge at the time of the challenged
`conduct.”).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Network-1’s claims for indirect and willful infringement require that
`Hikvision had both knowledge of the patent and knowledge that it was causing
`some underlying direct infringement by a third party before the alleged acts of
`indirect or willful infringement occurred. But Network-1’s Amended Complaint
`fails to adequately plead either, and Network-1’s indirect infringement and willful
`infringement claims should be dismissed.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:340
`
`
`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
`
`A. The Indirect And Willful Infringement Claims Should Be
`Dismissed, Because Network-1 Does Not Allege It Gave Hikvision
`Pre-Expiration Notice Of The ’930 Patent Or Of Infringement.
`Initially, the Amended Complaint fails to allege that Network-1 ever notified
`Hikvision about the ’930 Patent or alleged infringement of the patent before it
`expired in March 2020.2 However, where a patent owner pleads an infringement
`claim that requires pre-suit knowledge, other decisions in this Circuit have
`recognized “the need for a [pre-suit] notice letter in almost all circumstances.”
`Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc., No. C 22-07611, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2023 WL 2562875, at
`*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2023); see also Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, 591 F. Supp. 3d
`638, 643–44 (N.D. Cal. 2022), leave to appeal denied, 2022 WL 1486359 (Fed.
`Cir. May 11, 2022). There is a common-sense rationale for expecting a patent
`owner to have had pre-suit3 communications with the accused infringer before
`pursuing indirect or willful infringement claims: “The practice of establishing pre-
`suit knowledge through a cease-and-desist letter that calls out patent claims and
`how accused products infringe should be encouraged to give an alleged infringer a
`meaningful opportunity to cease infringement or get a license before a lawsuit
`commences.” Splunk Inc., 2023 WL 2562875, at *3; see also GoTV Streaming,
`LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 22-07556, 2023 WL 2627016, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16,
`2023) (Judge Klausner discussing pre-suit knowledge pleading requirement,
`stating: “The Court further explained [in Ravgen, Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-09011, 2022 WL 2047613 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2022)] that ambushing
`
`
`2 By contrast, in other recently filed complaints, Network-1 has specifically alleged
`that it gave pre-expiration notice of the ’930 Patent to the alleged infringer. For
`example, in a complaint filed one day after Network-1 filed this case, Network-1
`alleged: “On August 7, 2008, Network-1 sent a letter to Panasonic providing notice
`of the ’930 Patent.” Network-1 v. Panasonic Holding Corp., No. 22-cv-00430, Dkt.
`1 at ¶ 48 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2022).
`3 Many cases discuss “pre-suit” knowledge or notice as opposed to “pre-expiration”
`knowledge or notice. Pre-suit knowledge or notice typically matters where the
`asserted patent has not yet expired at the time the suit is filed. Here, the ’930 Patent
`expired years before the suit was filed. So in this case, Network-1’s failure to
`provide pre-expiration knowledge is necessarily a failure to provide pre-suit
`knowledge, and defeats Network-1’s indirect and willful infringement claims.
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 6 -
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:341
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`defendants with willful infringement claims instead of typical cease-and-desist
`letters would effectively deny defendants the opportunity to meaningfully evaluate
`and potentially cease the allegedly infringing conduct in order to avoid liability for
`induced infringement or willful infringement.”).
`Even in cases where a patentee has sent a notice letter identifying a particular
`patent prior to filing a complaint, judges in this District have nevertheless
`consistently dismissed indirect and willful infringement claims for failing to meet
`the pre-suit knowledge of infringement requirement where that notice letter did not
`sufficiently identify the accused product and explain the factual basis for the
`alleged infringement. See, e.g., Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Test Sys., Inc., No. 20-
`2713, 2020 WL 8173024, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) (Judge Wu dismissing
`indirect and willful infringement claims, stating: “To show that a party had the
`requisite knowledge for indirect infringement, a [pre-suit] letter must include a
`specific charge of infringement and identify an accused product at issue in this
`case.”); Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Nokia Corp., No. 19-02190, 2020 WL
`6126285, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2020) (Judge Kronstadt dismissing induced
`infringement claim where pre-suit letter did “not identify any accused product or
`technology” and did “not state a specific charge of infringement”); Parity
`Networks, LLC v. Moxa Inc., No. 20-698, 2020 WL 6064636, at*4 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
`11, 2020) (Judge Selna dismissing indirect and willful infringement claims where
`pre-suit letters “merely made reference to a set of sixty-five patents without specific
`allegations of infringement” and thus were “insufficient to provide factual
`allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents”); Polaris PowerLED
`Techs., LLC v. Vizio, Inc., No. 18-1571, 2019 WL 3220016, at *2–4 (C.D. Cal. May
`7, 2019) (Judge Selna dismissing induced infringement claim where pre-suit letter
`identified some patents and products, but failed “to tie allegedly infringing features
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`HIKVISION PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`2:22-CV-08050 CJC(JDEx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-08050-CJC-JDE Document 27 Filed 05/04/23 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:342
`
`
`or designs to particular patents”).4
`These cases demonstrate the necessity of a pre-suit (and pre-expiration)
`communication from the patent owner to the accused infringer that both: (a)
`identified the asserted patent and (b) explained the infringement allegations, in
`order to state a plausible claim for indirect or willful infringement. But here, the
`Amended Complaint does not—and cannot—allege that Network-1 ever
`communicated with Hikvision in any way regarding the ’930 Patent and its alleged
`infringement before the ’930 Patent expired in March 2020.5 The Court should
`dismiss Network-1’s indirect and willful infringement claims for this reason alone.
`B. Network-1 Does Not Allege Sufficient Facts To Support A
`Plausible Claim For Indirect Infringement.
`Unable to plead the required knowledge for indirect infringement based on
`any pre-expiration communication with Hikvision, Network-1 instead cobbles
`together speculative allegations about how the ’930 Patent and Network-1’s prior
`litigation and licensing campaign were “industry famous” and must have been
`known to Hikvision. Network-1’s allegations also attempt to blur the distinction
`between the requirement for pleading knowledge of the ’930 Patent itself and the
`separate requirement for pleading that Hikvision knew of the underlying
`infringement of the ’930 Patent by Hikvision customers. But aside from pure
`speculation, the Amended Complaint does not plausibly plead either of the two
`knowledge requirements.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4 On the other hand, where a patent owner’s pre-suit communications did provide
`sufficient notice of the asserted patent and the alleged infringement, this Court has
`declined to dismiss inducement and willful infringement claims. See Litebook Co.,
`Ltd. v. Verilux, Inc., No. 22-01124, 2023 WL 2733463 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023);
`Philips N.V. v. TTE Tech., Inc., No. 20-01406, 2020 WL 13302815, at *2–3 (C.D.
`Cal. Sept. 3, 2020). That is not the situation here.
`5 Nor can Network-1 rely on the filing of the Original Complaint in November 2022
`as provi