Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:189
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
` Bradley A. Hyde (Bar No. 301145)
`bradley.hyde@lw.com
`650 Town Center Drive - 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, California 92626-1925
`Telephone: (714) 540-1235
`Facsimile: (714) 755-8290
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
` Charles H. Sanders (pro hac vice)
`charles.sanders@lw.com
` Anant K. Saraswat (pro hac vice)
`anant.saraswat@lw.com
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02116
`Telephone: (617) 948-6000
`Facsimile: (617) 948-6001
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
` Lesley M. Hamming (pro hac vice)
`lesley.hamming@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Telephone: (312) 876-7700
`Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
`
`Attorneys for Defendants SEOUL
`SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD and
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS,
`INC., a New York corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,
`LTD, a Korean corporation, and
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`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
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Judge: Honorable James V. Selna
`Date: October 16, 2017
`Time: 1:30 pm
`Courtroom: 10C
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:190
`
`
`TO DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF
`RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 16, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 10C before the Honorable James
`V. Selna of the United States District Court for the Central District of California,
`located at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California, defendants Seoul
`Semiconductor Co., Ltd. (“SSC”) and Seoul Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”)
`(collectively, “Seoul” or “Defendants”) will, and hereby do, move to dismiss
`Document Security System, Inc.’s (“DSS’s”) claims for induced infringement and
`willful infringement of all three asserted patents and to dismiss DSS’s claim for
`direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,771 (the “’771 patent”).
`
`Seoul makes this motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on
`the grounds that DSS’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible claim
`for induced or willful infringement or direct infringement of the ’771 patent. See
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This motion is supported by the
`attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the files, records, and pleadings
`in this action; and any arguments presented at the time of the hearing on this
`motion.
`
`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
`
`L.R. 7-3 Statement
` This motion is made following the conference of counsel under Local Rule
`
`7-3, which took place on August 22, 2017.
`
`Dated: August 29, 2017 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Bradley A. Hyde
`Bradley A. Hyde (Bar No. 301145)
`Charles H. Sanders (pro hac vice)
`Anant K. Saraswat (pro hac vice)
`Lesley M. Hamming (pro hac vice)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:191
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,
`LTD., and SEOUL
`SEMICONDUCTOR, 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
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:192
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Pleading Standards Under The Federal Rules ..................................... 7
`B.
`Induced Infringement ........................................................................... 8
`C. Willful Infringement ............................................................................ 9
`D. Direct Infringement ............................................................................ 10
`IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 12
`A. DSS Fails to Allege A Plausible Basis for Induced
`Infringement ....................................................................................... 12
`DSS’s Placeholder Allegation Of Willful Infringement Is
`Improper, And DSS Fails To Allege the Requisite Pre-
`Suit Knowledge Of The Asserted Patents.......................................... 15
`DSS’s Claim for Direct Infringement Of The ’771 Patent
`is Deficient And Implausible ............................................................. 16
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 20
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:193
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Hilton Resorts Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-1810 JLS (NLS), 2013 WL 12071642 (S.D. Cal.
`July 18, 2013) ................................................................................................. 8, 13
`
`Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
`No. 2:15-CV-478, 2016 WL 1253533 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2016) ...................... 11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................. 7, 14, 19
`
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp.,
`189 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2016), aff’d, No. 2016-2203
`(Fed. Cir. May 9, 2017) .................................................................... 10, 11, 17, 19
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. CV16-2026 PHX DGC, 2017 WL 679116 (D. Ariz. Feb.
`21, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 10
`
`Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.,
`et al.,
`No. 2:17-CV-308 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................... 2, 3
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-05790-JST, 2016 WL 4427209 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22,
`2016) ........................................................................................... 10, 11, 17, 18, 19
`
`Emerson Elec. Co. v. Suzhou Cleva Elec. Appliance Co.,
`No. 4:13-cv-01043, 2014 WL 2481135 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2014) ................. 9, 14
`
`Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc.,
`279 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 13
`
`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
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:194
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-00072-BLF, 2017 WL 2462423 (N.D. Cal. June 7,
`2017) ............................................................................................................. 10, 15
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ......................................................................................... 9
`
`Hebbe v. Pliler,
`627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Jenkins v. LogicMark, LLC,
`No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH, 2017 WL 376154 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25,
`2017) ............................................................................................................. 11, 17
`
`Joy Tech., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.,
`6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 20
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 8, 13
`
`Lyda v. CBS Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion, Inc.,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ............................................................... 10, 17
`
`Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,
`572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 7
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Etron Tech. Am. Inc.,
`No. CV 8:16-00599, 2016 WL 9046909 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21,
`2016) ....................................................................................................... 11, 17, 18
`
`Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC,
`No. 16-cv-06795-EJD, 2017 WL 2311407 (N.D. Cal. May 26,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Superior Industries, LLC v. Thor Global Enterprises Ltd.,
`700 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 8, 14
`
`TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`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
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:195
`
`
`TCL Commc’ns Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktenbologet LM
`Ericsson,
`No. SACV 14-00341-JVS, 2014 WL 12588293 (C.D. Cal. Sep.
`30, 2014) ................................................................................................... 9, 15, 16
`
`TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc.,
`No. CV 16-2106 PSG (SSX), 2016 WL 4703873 (C.D. Cal.
`Aug. 3, 2016) .......................................................................................... 10, 16, 20
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Netgear, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-2262, 2013 WL 4112601 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) ................... 9, 14
`
`Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Tropical Flooring,
`No. CV 14-02209 BRO SSX, 2014 WL 2795360 (C.D. Cal.
`June 13, 2014)............................................................................................... 10, 16
`
`Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp.,
`No. 3:13-cv-1278-GPC-JMA, 2013 WL 5729487 (S.D. Cal.
`Oct. 22, 2013) ................................................................................................. 8, 13
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................... 9
`
`Ziptronix, Inc. v. Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`No. C 10-5525 SBA, 2011 WL 5416187 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8,
`2011) ................................................................................................................... 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`STATUTES
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ............................................................................................... 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:196
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), defendants Seoul Semiconductor Co.,
`Ltd. (“SSC”) and Seoul Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) (collectively, “Seoul” or
`“Defendants”) move to dismiss plaintiff Document Security Systems, Inc.’s
`(“DSS’s”) claims for induced infringement and willful infringement of all three
`asserted patents and DSS’s claim for direct infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,949,771 (“the ’771 patent”) in its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No.
`18 (Ex. A).1 DSS has taken four opportunities to file its patent infringement
`complaint against Seoul. DSS’s fourth complaint is an improvement, and Seoul
`does not contest the sufficiency of DSS’s direct infringement allegations as to two
`of the three asserted patents.
`However, despite four attempts, DSS remains unable to plead anything more
`than conclusory allegations of specific intent to induce infringement or to plead
`pre-suit knowledge of the patents by Seoul. DSS’s allegations of inducement are
`precisely the type of generalized allegations the courts have found insufficient to
`allege specific intent. The allegations merely consist of boilerplate lists of types of
`documents and high-level links to Seoul’s website. DSS does not connect any of
`these documents or website links to any exemplary accused product, or allege any
`facts to support an inference that Seoul has known of direct infringement by others.
`Furthermore, although both induced and willful infringement require pre-suit
`knowledge of the asserted patents, DSS merely points to its own prior failed
`attempts to file a sufficient complaint as its basis to allege pre-suit knowledge.
`DSS cannot bootstrap its serial filings into a sufficient allegation of pre-suit
`knowledge. DSS’s approach would render the requirement of pre-suit knowledge
`meaningless because any patentee could simply file an amended complaint and cite
`its prior complaint to circumvent the requirement. Moreover, DSS effectively
`
`1 All exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Anant Saraswat filed herewith.
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:197
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`concedes that it has no factual basis to allege willfulness now, seeking to reserve
`the right to seek a willfulness finding based on facts DSS might learn in discovery.
`DSS also fails to plead a plausible claim for direct infringement of the ’771
`patent. DSS pleads direct infringement of all three patents by parroting patent
`claim language and pasting pictures into its complaint. DSS does not allege how
`each claim limitation is met, as the law requires. Nevertheless, Seoul can infer
`DSS’s infringement position for two asserted patents and thus does not raise those
`patents to focus this motion on the key issues requiring the Court’s attention. As to
`the ’771 patent, however, Seoul cannot infer DSS’s infringement position because
`there is no plausible basis to infer alleged infringement. The ’771 patent requires a
`hole that goes through a substrate, extending from a top opening to a bottom
`opening, and that is covered at the bottom by a platform. But the pictures DSS
`pasted into the complaint show there is no hole through the substrate; there is no
`opening at the bottom and therefore no platform covers it. Accordingly, even
`making all reasonable inferences in DSS’s favor, it is impossible to infer a
`plausible infringement claim.
`Therefore, Seoul respectfully requests that the Court dismiss DSS’s claims
`for induced infringement and willful infringement of all three asserted patents and
`DSS’s claim of direct infringement of the ’771 patent. Dismissing those claims
`will appropriately narrow this case to the allegations that, after four tries, DSS has
`managed to plead sufficiently to infer a plausible basis on which to proceed.
`II. BACKGROUND
`On April 13, 2017, DSS filed its first complaint against Seoul, alleging
`infringement of the ’771 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,524,087 in the Eastern
`District of Texas. See Ex. B, Complaint, ECF No. 1, Document Security Systems,
`Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-CV-308 (E.D. Tex.). On
`May 9, DSS filed an amended complaint, adding U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486. See
`Ex. C, First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 15, at ¶¶ 25-31, Document Security
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:198
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.). On June 7, after the Supreme Court’s decision in TC
`Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), restricting venue
`in patent cases, DSS voluntarily dismissed its case against Seoul in the Eastern
`District of Texas. See Ex. D, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 16,
`Document Security Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.). The same day, DSS re-filed its case
`against Seoul in this Court. See Ex. E, Complaint, ECF No. 1.
`DSS identified a broad array of accused products, but did not map any claim
`limitation in any representative patent claim onto any product. See id. ¶¶ 13, 19 &
`26. DSS’s complaint further generically alleged induced infringement based on
`Seoul’s allegedly “providing technical guides, product data sheets, demonstrations,
`software and hardware specifications, installation guides, and other forms of
`support,” without alleging how any of those documents evidence specific intent to
`induce infringement, and did not connect any of those generic categories of
`documents to any accused product. Id. ¶¶ 16, 22 & 29. DSS included a
`placeholder to allege willful infringement “[t]o the extent facts are learned in
`discovery” and an accusation that Seoul knew of the patents “no later than the date
`they were served with this Complaint.” Id. ¶¶ 17, 23 & 30.
`On July 25, 2017, Seoul emailed DSS to point out that its complaint failed to
`adequately allege direct, indirect, or willful infringement and asked DSS whether it
`would amend. See Ex. F. Seoul again emailed DSS on August 7. Ex. G. DSS
`then filed its FAC, which is currently the operative complaint, on August 15. See
`Ex. A.
`In its FAC, DSS expands its direct infringement allegations by parroting the
`language of an exemplary claim of each patent and including pictures of an
`accused product. See id. ¶¶ 14-17, 26-29 & 38-42. DSS repeats its allegations of
`inducement based on “providing technical guides, product data sheets,
`demonstrations, software and hardware specifications, installation guides.” Id. ¶¶
`20, 31 & 44. DSS also alleges that Seoul induces its customers to infringe “by at
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:199
`
`
`least advertising and promoting the use (e.g., hyperlinked ‘Application’ below)” of
`the accused products on Seoul’s website. Id. ¶¶ 20, 32 & 45. The link DSS
`provides, http://www.seoulsemicon.com/en/applications/ (see id.) brings the user to
`a general “Applications” page, as shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DSS does not cite any content on this page or allege how any such content supports
`its inducement claim.
`
`DSS further generically alleges that “Defendant”—DSS does not identify
`which one—“specifically intends its customers infringe … through trade show
`presentations, customer visits, direct customer contacts and application guides.”
`Id. ¶¶ 21, 32 & 45. Again, DSS does not identify anything about these types of
`activities that allegedly evidences specific intent to infringe, nor does DSS link any
`of them to an accused product. In addition, DSS alleges “specific intent” based on
`Seoul’s allegedly “selling [] Accused Instrumentalities overseas with the specific
`intent that the customer import, offer to sell, and/or sell” the products to serve the
`United States market, identifying Seoul’s U.S. distributors. Id. Furthermore, DSS
`
`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
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:200
`
`
`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
`
`identifies nothing to support its allegation that SSC has known of alleged direct
`infringement by others. See id. ¶¶ 20, 31 & 44.
`As to willful infringement, DSS repeats its placeholder allegation:
`To the extent additional facts learned in discovery show that
`Defendants’ infringement of the ’771 Patent is or has been willful
`and/or egregious, or to the extent that Defendants’ actions subsequent
`to the filing of this Complaint—such as their behavior as litigants or
`their continued failure to take remedial actions—render their
`infringement egregious, DSS reserves the right to request such a
`finding at time of trial.
`Id. ¶¶ 22, 33 & 46. DSS alleges that Seoul has been aware of the asserted patents
`“as of a date no later than the date they were served with the complaint in the case
`2:17-cv-308, filed April 13, 2017,” i.e., the first of DSS’s four complaints accusing
`Seoul of patent infringement. Id. ¶¶ 22, 33; see also ¶ 46 (“as of a date no later
`than the date they were served with the amended complaint in the case 2:17-cv-
`308, filed May 9, 2017”).
`To allege direct infringement of the ’771 patent, DSS quotes claim 3 and
`includes pictures of an accused product. See id. ¶¶ 14-17. As DSS alleges, claim 3
`recites “a substrate having opposing first and second surfaces, the substrate
`defining an aperture extending from the first surface to the second surface, said
`aperture having a first opening in the first surface and second opening in said
`second surface” and “a platform covering said first opening, said platform being
`located outside of said aperture.” Id. ¶¶ 14-15. In other words, claim 3 requires an
`aperture (i.e., hole) extending through the substrate from a first opening in the first
`(bottom) surface to a second opening in the opposing second (top) surface, and a
`platform outside the aperture covering the first (bottom) opening. This is
`illustrated for example in figures on the face of the ’771 patent, copied below
`(annotations added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:201
`
`
`second
`opening
`
`first
`opening
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, as shown in the pictures of the accused product DSS pasted in its
`complaint (copied below), there is no first (bottom) opening of the aperture, and
`thus the alleged platform DSS identifies is not outside the aperture covering this
`opening. To the contrary, the platform identified in red by DSS sits in the middle
`of the device on the substrate.
`
`platform
`
`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
`
`Ex. A, at ¶¶14-16.
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:202
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To try to avoid early motion practice, Seoul informed DSS of the
`deficiencies in its inducement and willfulness allegations and its direct
`infringement allegations as to the ’771 patent. DSS refused to take action to
`remedy its deficient allegations, insisting that they are sufficient, which required
`Seoul to file this motion.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Pleading Standards Under The Federal Rules
`A.
`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
`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.2
`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).3 In addition, “[t]hreadbare 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.
`
`
`2 All emphases added unless otherwise noted.
`3 Regional circuit law applies to motions to dismiss in patent cases. See Lyda v.
`CBS Corp., 838 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #:203
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Induced Infringement
`B.
`To state a claim for induced infringement, a patentee must plead facts
`sufficient to make plausible that the defendant knew of the alleged underlying
`direct infringement and had specific intent to encourage it. See Superior
`Industries, LLC v. Thor Global Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1296 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (affirming dismissal of inducement claim where plaintiff “[did] not allege
`any facts to support a reasonable inference that [defendant] specifically intended to
`induce infringement of the [asserted] Patent or that it knew it had induced acts that
`constitute infringement”). The “specific intent necessary to induce infringement
`requires more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement …
`the inducer must have an affirmative intent to cause direct infringement.” Kyocera
`Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(internal quotation marks omitted).
`In accordance with this Federal Circuit precedent, district courts have
`dismissed inducement claims where the plaintiff merely alleged that the defendant
`provides support for its products, but did not separately explain how this shows
`specific intent to induce others to infringe directly. See e.g., Unisone Strategic IP,
`Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp., No. 3:13-cv-1278-GPC-JMA, 2013 WL 5729487, at *3
`(S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) (“[Plaintiff’s allegations] fail because they merely
`indicate that Defendant provides instruction, technical support, and training for
`using its own software … [and are] not sufficient to plausibly infer that Defendant
`had the specific intent to induce others to infringe.”); Ameranth, Inc. v. Hilton
`Resorts Corp., No. 11-CV-1810 JLS (NLS), 2013 WL 12071642, at *8-9 (S.D.
`Cal. July 18, 2013) (allegations that the defendant “provides instructions and
`direction … and advertises, promotes, and encourages the use of [the accused
`product]” were insufficient).
`Inducement further requires knowledge of the alleged direct infringement by
`others and knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Pleading knowledge of the alleged
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEOUL’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/29/17 Page 16 of 27 Page ID #:204
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`AT T ORNEYS AT L AW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`infringement by others requires more than merely alleging providing instructions
`to customers or selling the accused products. See Emerson Elec. Co. v. Suzhou
`Cleva Elec. Appliance Co., No. 4:13-cv-01043, 2014 WL 2481135, at *2-3 (E.D.
`Mo. June 3, 2014) (allegations that defendants sold infringing products do not
`support an inference of knowledge of end users’ alleged direct infringement); U.S.
`Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Netgear, Inc., No. 13-cv-2262, 2013 WL 4112601, at
`*3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) (providing instructions to customers is insufficient to
`allege knowledge of customers’ alleged direct infringement). Moreover, where a
`plaintiff only has alleged knowledge of the patents stemming from filing of the
`complaint, “damages for any such indirect infringement will be limited to
`infringement occurring after [defendant] obtained knowledge of the patent.” TCL
`Commc’ns Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktenbologet LM Ericsson, No. SACV
`14-00341-JVS (ANx), 2014 WL 12588293, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2014); see
`also Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1109, 1116
`(N.D. Cal. 2016) (similarly limiting the plaintiff to pursuing inducement based on
`post-filing activities).
`C. Willful