Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:919
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS,
`INC., a New York corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,
`LTD., a Korean corporation, and
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM
`OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION
`TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S RESTATED
`WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT CLAIM
`
`Judge: Honorable James V. Selna
`Date: February 5, 2018
`Time: 1:30 pm
`Courtroom: 10C
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
`TO DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:920
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT............................................................................................... 2
`
`A. DSS Fails To Distinguish Its Current Allegations From
`Its Prior Deficient Allegations............................................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`DSS Fails To Distinguish Its Willful Infringement
`Allegations From Those Dismissed As Deficient At The
`Pleading Stage ................................................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 6
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:921
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Bobcar Media, LLC v. Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc.,
`No. 16-885, 2017 WL 74729 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017)........................................ 5
`
`Boundaries Sols. Inc. v. CoreLogic, Inc.,
`No. 5:14-CV-00761-PSG, 2014 WL 4954017 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
`29, 2014) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Big Fish Games, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00857-RCJ-VCF, 2016 WL 4521682 (D. Nev.
`Aug. 29, 2016) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-00072-BLF, 2017 WL 2462423(N.D. Cal. June 7,
`2017) ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Nanosys, Inc. v. QD Vision, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-01957, 2016 WL 49430006 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16,
`2016) ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Seagate Technology, LLC,
`497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. C-16-03582 WHA, 2017 WL 3967864 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9,
`2017) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB,
`No. CV 15-871-LPS, 2016 WL 3748772 (D. Del. July 12,
`2016) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:922
`
`
`XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-03848-RS, 2017 WL 4551519 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11,
`2017) ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:923
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`DSS barely responds to Seoul’s argument that DSS’s willful infringement
`
`allegations in its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC,” Ex. A) are, in substance,
`
`unchanged from those in its First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” Ex. B) which this
`
`Court dismissed, and therefore likewise should be dismissed.1
`
`
`
`DSS does not even try to explain how its current allegations are any different
`
`until the final pages of its opposition. DSS’s primary response is that DSS
`
`removed the language conceding that it could not plead sufficient facts to state a
`
`willful infringement claim. Docket No. 48 at 10-11. But DSS’s removal of its
`
`concession does not change the fact that DSS remains unable to plead sufficient
`
`facts. The only allegations DSS asserts are new—“that Defendants ‘failed to
`
`investigate and remedy their infringement’ and ‘continued to offer infringing
`
`products without having modified or altered those products in a manner that would
`
`not infringe’” (id. at 12 (quoting Ex. A, Docket No. 40 at ¶¶ 22, 33 & 46))—are no
`
`different, in substance or detail, than DSS’s prior allegation that Defendants “failed
`
`to remedy their infringement.” Ex. B, FAC, Docket No. 18, at ¶¶ 22, 33, and 46.
`
`
`
`Unable to distinguish its current allegations from its previously dismissed
`
`allegations, DSS bases its opposition on the false premise that Seoul confuses the
`
`pleading standard with the standard for proving willfulness. To the contrary,
`
`unlike DSS, Seoul applied the basic pleading standard throughout its brief.
`
`Compare Seoul’s motion, Docket No. 45 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
`
`(2009), and/or Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), on pages 1, 2, 4,
`
`6, 8, and 10), with DSS’s opposition, Docket No. 48 (citing Iqbal and/or Twombly
`
`only on page 2). DSS also cannot distinguish the multiple cases cited in Seoul’s
`
`brief dismissing willfulness allegations analogous to those here, so DSS asserts
`
`without explanation that its allegations are better and that the cases involved
`
`
`1 Exs. A-G accompanied Seoul’s motion, Docket No. 45.
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:924
`
`
`determinations on the merits rather than at the pleadings stage. See Docket No. 48
`
`at 6-7. Neither is true.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Seoul respectfully requests that the Court dismiss DSS’s
`
`willful infringement claim again and make clear that DSS only may try to re-plead
`
`willfulness by alleging “factual allegations” sufficient to “raise a right to relief
`
`above the speculative level.” Ex. C, Docket No. 36-1 at 10 (quoting Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. at 555) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. DSS Fails To Distinguish Its Current Allegations From Its Prior
`Deficient Allegations
`
`
`
`Seoul compared DSS’s prior willful infringement allegations side-by-side to
`
`its current allegations to demonstrate that the substance was the same. See Docket
`
`No. 45 at 6-8. DSS does not contend that Seoul missed any new allegations or
`
`challenge this side-by-side comparison showing the substance did not change.
`
`DSS offers only two meager responses, neither of which undermines Seoul’s point
`
`that DSS has merely restated the same substance in different words.
`
`
`
`First, DSS points out that it “removed the language” this Court concluded
`
`was a “concession” that DSS “c[ould] not plead facts sufficient to state a plausible
`
`claim for willful infringement.” Docket No. 48 at 11. However, removing this
`
`concession does not mean that DSS has pled any more facts or that its willfulness
`
`infringement claim is any more plausible. Removing the concession merely shows
`
`that DSS has become less candid about the state of its allegations. DSS does not
`
`contend that it obtained any new evidence that would make its concession any less
`
`applicable today.
`
`
`
`Second, in the section at the end of its brief where DSS claims the “SAC
`
`introduces new allegations” (Docket No. 48 at 11), DSS quotes from a single
`
`sentence of its SAC. See id. at 12. Seoul addressed that sentence (on the right
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:925
`
`
`below) in its side-by-side comparison showing it makes substantively the same
`
`allegation in the FAC that Seoul has not changed its allegedly infringing behavior:
`
`
`FAC
`Defendants have failed
`to remedy their
`infringement since
`learning of the [] Patent.
`
`SAC
`Since that date, Defendants have failed to investigate
`and remedy their infringement of the [] Patent and thus
`willfully and egregiously continue to infringe the []
`Patent. On information and belief, Defendants
`continued to offer infringing products without having
`modified or altered those products in a manner that
`would not infringe the [] patent.
`
`Compare Ex. B, FAC, Docket No. 18, at ¶¶ 22, 33, and 46, with Ex. A, SAC,
`
`Docket No. 40, at ¶¶ 22, 33, and 46. DSS offers no response. Instead, DSS’s
`
`argument confirms that what DSS views as purportedly new—“that Defendants are
`
`refusing to alter their infringing products” (Docket No. 48 at 11)—is no different
`
`from its prior allegation that “Defendants have failed to remedy their
`
`infringement.”2 Ex. B, FAC, Docket No. 18, at ¶¶ 22, 33, and 46.
`
`
`
`DSS’s assertion in a footnote that the Court’s order did not address such
`
`allegations of “(i) continuing infringement of Seoul amounting to egregious
`
`conduct or (ii) willful blindness” is wrong. Docket No. 48 at 11 n.4. DSS argued
`
`in opposing Seoul’s prior motion to dismiss: “DSS’s allegations in this case go
`
`further, alleging Seoul ‘failed to remedy their infringement since learning of the
`
`[asserted] patent.’ … These allegations can each be a basis to infer willful and/or
`
`egregious infringement.” Ex. E, Docket No. 29 at 16. The Court rejected DSS’s
`
`argument, explaining, “DSS’s willful infringement claims do not meet the
`
`standards of Twombly and Iqbal.” Ex. C, Docket No. 36-1 at 10. DSS had its
`
`opportunity to urge the Court to reach a different conclusion before the Court
`
`rendered its decision, but DSS chose not to argue against the Court’s tentative
`
`ruling.
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`2 DSS also references its inducement allegations (Ex. A, Docket No. 40 at 11), but
`those allegations are likewise unchanged. Compare Docket No. 45 at 7-8
`(comparing Ex. B, FAC, Docket No. 18, at ¶¶ 20-21, 31-32, and 44-45, with Ex. A,
`SAC, Docket No. 40, at ¶¶ 22, 33, and 46).
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:926
`
`
`B. DSS Fails To Distinguish Its Willful Infringement Allegations
`From Those Dismissed As Deficient At The Pleading Stage
`
`DSS incorrectly claims, “Seoul confuses the standard for proving willful
`
`infringement with the standard for pleading willful infringement.” Docket No. 48
`
`at 5. To the contrary, Seoul analogized DSS’s willful infringement allegations to
`
`those cases where the Court dismissed willful infringement allegations at the
`
`pleading stage. See Docket No. 45 at 9-10. DSS fails to distinguish those cases.
`
`DSS admits that those cases involved “bare conclusory statements,” implying that
`
`its allegations are different, but they are actually the same. Docket No. 48 at 6.
`
`Just as XpertUniverse alleged “Cisco has continued to deliberately and
`
`wantonly infringe” despite knowledge of the patent, XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc., No. 17-cv-03848-RS, 2017 WL 4551519 at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2017),
`
`DSS alleges here that Seoul “willfully and egregiously continue to infringe”
`
`despite knowledge of the patents. Ex. A, SAC, Docket No. 40, at ¶¶ 22, 33, and
`
`46. The Court dismissed XpertUniverse’s willful infringement allegations because
`
`XpertUniverse “need[ed] to do more to show that Cisco has engaged in ‘egregious
`
`cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement’ that could possibly warrant
`
`enhanced damages,” just as DSS must do more here. XpertUniverse, Inc., 2017
`
`WL 4551519 at *6.
`
`DSS simply cannot meet the pleading standard for willful infringement,
`
`which requires “specific factual allegations about [Seoul’s] subjective intent, or
`
`other aspects of [Seoul’s] behavior that would suggest its behavior was
`
`‘egregious.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 17-CV-00072-BLF, 2017 WL
`
`2462423, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) (dismissing willfulness allegations
`
`because plaintiff “failed to allege facts that that support a plausible inference that
`
`Cisco engaged in ‘egregious’ conduct”). Conclusorily alleging continuation of the
`
`allegedly infringing activity, as DSS does here, is not enough to support a willful
`
`infringement claim. See id.; see also CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Big Fish Games,
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:927
`
`
`Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00857 RCJ VCF, 2016 WL 4521682 at *14 (D. Nev. Aug. 29,
`
`2016) (allegation that Defendant’s “continued use of its infringing products
`
`constitutes willful and blatant infringement” was insufficient); Varian Med. Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. Elekta AB, No. CV 15-871-LPS, 2016 WL 3748772 at *8 (D. Del. July 12,
`
`2016) (dismissing willfulness claim where Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’
`
`“infringement has and continues to be ‘willful and deliberate[ ]’” because it “d[id]
`
`not sufficiently articulate how” Defendants’ activities “actually amounted to an
`
`egregious case of infringement of the patent”).
`
`The cases DSS cites do not support finding its allegations sufficient. DSS
`
`posits that Boundaries Sols. Inc. v. CoreLogic, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-00761-PSG,
`
`2014 WL 4954017 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2014), sets forth a four-part standard for
`
`willful infringement allegations, but that case stated, “‘[A] willfulness claim
`
`asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the
`
`accused infringer’s pre-filing conduct.’” Id. at *5 (quoting In re Seagate
`
`Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)) (emphasis added).
`
`Similarly, in Bobcar Media, LLC v. Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc., No. 16-885,
`
`2017 WL 74729 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017), Bobcar’s allegations “describe[d]
`
`multiple letters sent to Aardvark describing the alleged infringement” before suit
`
`was filed. Bobcar, 2017 WL 74729 at *6. Boundaries and Bobcar are thus unlike
`
`the present case because here DSS relies exclusively on Seoul’s alleged conduct
`
`after DSS filed its original complaint.3
`
`DSS also points to Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. C-16-03582
`
`WHA, 2017 WL 3967864 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2017), but that case involved a
`
`“second lawsuit” between the parties that was at an “advanced stage,” and
`
`defendant Apple had not moved to dismiss the willfulness allegations as originally
`
`filed. Id. at *1, *5. By contrast, Seoul identified DSS’s willful infringement
`
`
`3 Bobcar also originated from outside the Ninth Circuit. DSS argues that the Court
`should not rely on such cases. See Docket No. 48 at 7 n.2.
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:928
`
`
`allegations as deficient at the outset, those allegations were dismissed, and there is
`
`no prior litigation history between the parties that might support any inference
`
`regarding Seoul’s intent.
`
`Indeed, DSS is forced to try to cobble together a low pleading standard
`
`requiring only knowledge of the patents based on pre-Halo case law because post-
`
`Halo decisions confirm the insufficiency of DSS’s willful infringement allegations.
`
`See Docket No. 48 at 3-4 (citing DRG-International, MobileMedia, Oracle,
`
`IpVenture, Emblaze, and Jardin, all of which precede the Supreme Court’s Halo
`
`decision). This Court recognized that, in Halo, the Supreme Court “did away with
`
`the requirement that ‘objective recklessness’ be shown in every case, instead
`
`‘limiting the award of enhanced damages to egregious cases of misconduct beyond
`
`typical infringement.’” Ex. C, Docket No. 36-1 at 9 (quoting Halo Electronics Inc.
`
`v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932, 1935 (2016)). The only post-
`
`Halo case DSS cites in setting forth the relevant legal standards, other than Straight
`
`Path addressed above, is Nanosys, Inc. v. QD Vision, Inc., No. 16-cv-01957, 2016
`
`WL 4943006 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016). In Nanosys, the court granted the
`
`defendant’s motion to dismiss, requiring plaintiff to amend to “bolster allegations
`
`showing willfulness beyond a claim of mere knowledge.” 2016 WL 4943006 at
`
`*8.
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, DSS’s claim of willful infringement of all
`
`asserted patents should be dismissed again.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 22, 2018 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Charles H. Sanders
`Bradley A. Hyde (Bar No. 301145)
`Charles H. Sanders (pro hac vice)
`Anant K. Saraswat (pro hac vice)
`
`
`
`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 T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG Document 50 Filed 01/22/18 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:929
`
`
`Lesley M. Hamming (pro hac vice)
`
`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
`
`
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`SEOUL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`