Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:104
`
`
`
`Matthew G. Berkowitz (SBN 310426)
`matthew.berkowitz@shearman.com
`Yue (Joy) Wang (SBN 300594)
`joy.wang@shearman.com
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`1460 El Camino Real, 2nd Floor
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.838.3600
`Fax: 650.838.3699
`
`L. Kieran Kieckhefer (SBN 251978)
`kieran.kieckhefer@shearman.com
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.616.1100
`Fax: 415.616.1199
`
`Attorneys for Defendant NetSuite, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NETSUITE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
` Case No. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`NETSUITE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Judge:
`Date:
`Time:
`Location:
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Josephine L. Staton
`November 1, 2019
`10:30 AM
`Ronald Reagan Federal
`Building, Courtroom 10A
`
`
`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
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:105
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTS ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the Asserted Patents ......................................................... 2
`
`Prior Proceedings on the Asserted Patents ................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ADP Cases ............................................................................... 6
`
`The 2016 NetSuite Case ................................................................. 7
`
`C. Uniloc’s Assertions in This Case .............................................................. 8
`
`III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Direct Patent Infringement Are Subject to the Iqbal /
`Twombly Pleading Standards and Require More than Conclusory
`Statements That a Defendant Infringes ................................................... 10
`
`The Court Need Only Adopt a Single, Straightforward Construction
`from Judge Schroeder’s Prior Order to Grant This Motion .................... 11
`
`C. Uniloc’s Complaint Should be Dismissed Because It Does Not
`Sufficiently Allege Infringement Under Judge Schroeder’s Claim
`Construction ............................................................................................ 14
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:106
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
` Page
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc.,
`No. 17-546-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 1517689 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2018) ........................ 10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................. 9, 14
`
`Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`No. 15-cv-5469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ...................... 10
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................. 9, 14
`
`Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`285 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................... 4
`
`Eagle Pharms., Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 341 (D. Del. 2019) ......................................................................... 10
`
`Harris v. Cnty. of Orange,
`682 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 3
`
`Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
`250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 4
`
`Medsquire LLC v. Spring Med. Sys., Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-04504-JHN-PLA, 2011 WL 4101093 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011) .... 10, 14
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 13
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 10
`
`Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC,
`No. 16-cv-06795-EJD, 2017 WL 2311407 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) ................... 10
`
`Orgain, Inc. v. N. Innovations Holding Corp.,
`No. 8:18-cv-01253-JLS-ADS, 2018 WL 7504409 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) ............ 9
`
`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
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:107
`
`Scripps Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-661 JLS (BGS), 2017 WL 1361623 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017) .............. 10
`
`Sleep Number Corp. v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC,
`Nos. ED CV 18-00356-AB (SPx) & ED CV 18-00357-AB (SPx), 2018 WL
`5263065 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 5, 7
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 12, 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
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:108
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) fails to allege infringement under a
`
`claim construction ruling that was already issued on these same two asserted patents
`
`by Judge Schroeder in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, after more than a year of contentious litigation. Accordingly, Uniloc’s
`
`Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
`
`Uniloc’s predecessors-in-interest—Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg,
`
`S.A.—first asserted the two patents in this case, U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578 (“the ’578
`
`patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293 (“the ’293 patent”), against defendant
`
`NetSuite, Inc. (“NetSuite”) in August 2016 in the Eastern District of Texas, and over
`
`the years, Uniloc and its predecessors have asserted them against different companies
`
`in approximately 50 separate cases. On August 16, 2017, more than a year and 100-
`
`plus docket entries into Uniloc’s suit against NetSuite, Judge Schroeder issued a 68-
`
`page claim construction order in a related case on many key terms from the ’293 and
`
`’578 patents that all but ended Uniloc’s chances of proving infringement against
`
`NetSuite. A month later, Uniloc voluntarily dismissed its case against NetSuite under
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was without prejudice because NetSuite
`
`had a motion to dismiss outstanding at the time, and had not yet answered.
`
`Now, nearly two years later, Uniloc is back. It re-filed effectively the same
`
`Complaint against NetSuite, without any attempt to address infringement under Judge
`
`Schroeder’s claim construction order, which continues to govern in those ongoing
`
`related cases.
`
`While full-blown claim construction proceedings may be inappropriate at the
`
`pleading stage, courts often decide straightforward, case-dispositive claim
`
`construction questions that turn on the intrinsic record. This is exactly that situation:
`
`another federal judge has already construed certain claim terms of the ’293 and ’578
`
`patents, and this Court need only adopt a single construction, for “application
`
`program(s),” which turns entirely on an issue of law—whether an admitted disclaimer
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:109
`
`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
`
`made during the prosecution history of a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466
`
`(“the ’466 patent”), applies to the ’293 and ’578 patents—in order to dismiss Uniloc’s
`
`Complaint.
`
`Dismissal is the just and judicially-efficient route in this case. Neither the
`
`parties nor the Court should proceed with full-blown litigation when a case-
`
`dispositive issue has already been litigated and resolved against Uniloc in a parallel
`
`case on the same patents. If Uniloc believes it has an infringement case under Judge
`
`Schroeder’s claim construction in those related cases, then it can provide sufficient
`
`detail in an amended Complaint that outlines those assertions under the requisite
`
`Iqbal / Twombly standard. Until then, it would be a waste of resources to proceed
`
`even into contention discovery, as if the prior claim construction ruling never
`
`happened and as if Uniloc gets a complete re-do with every new lawsuit it brings.
`
`Accordingly, Uniloc’s Complaint should be dismissed. While NetSuite does
`
`not object to giving Uniloc one additional chance to plead infringement, it believes
`
`that this would be futile and that Uniloc cannot do so if the Court adopts Judge
`
`Schroeder’s construction of “application program(s).”
`
`II.
`
`FACTS
`
`A. Background of the Asserted Patents
`
`Each of the asserted patents generally relates to configurations for centralized
`
`management of computer applications across a server / client network. For example,
`
`Figure 1 of the ’293 patent (reproduced below) shows the following structure, with a
`
`centralized “network management server” 20, “on-demand servers” 22 and 22’,
`
`which “deliver[] applications as needed responsive to user requests as requests are
`
`received,” and “client stations” 24, 24’, 26, and 26’. See Compl., Ex. B (’293 Patent)
`
`at 6:60-7:9, FIG. 1 (below); see also Compl., Ex. A (’578 Patent) at 6:46-62, FIG. 1.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:110
`
`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
`
`Compl., Ex. B (’293 Patent) at FIG. 1.
`
`Per Uniloc, the application programs that are the subject of the asserted patents
`
`are software programs “written to perform a particular function for a user (as opposed
`
`to system software, which is designed to operate a network[]),” such as, for example,
`
`“word processing applications (e.g., Microsoft Word) and spreadsheets (e.g., Excel).”
`
`See Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ADP,
`
`LLC, No. 16-cv-00741, D.I. 151 at 3 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) (“the ADP Cases”)
`(Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 1).1 Uniloc asserted in the ADP Cases that the disclosed
`
`1 Exhibits 1–4 are attached to the Declaration of Matthew G. Berkowitz In Support of
`NetSuite’s Motion to Dismiss (“Berkowitz Decl.”), filed concurrently herewith.
`Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to the extent necessary,
`NetSuite requests that the Court take judicial notice of these Exhibits. See Harris v.
`Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that courts “may
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:111
`
`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
`
`invention purports to improve the efficiency of distributing these application
`
`programs throughout large enterprise organizations, and to both update them across a
`
`set of users and to allocate licenses in the enterprise environment. Id. at 3-4.
`
`Uniloc asserts that NetSuite infringes claim 1 of both patents, which are
`
`reproduced below. The term “application program” is emphasized in each claim,
`
`since Judge Schroeder’s construction of that term, explained below, justifies
`
`dismissal of this case:
`
`Claim 1 of the ’293 Patent
`
`A method for distribution of application programs to a target on-demand
`
`server on a network comprising the following executed on a
`
`centralized network management server coupled to the network:
`
`providing an application program to be distributed to the network
`
`management server;
`
`specifying a source directory and a target directory for distribution of the
`
`application program;
`
`preparing a file packet associated with the application program and
`
`including a segment configured to initiate registration operations
`
`for the application program at the target on-demand server; and
`
`distributing the file packet to the target on-demand server to make the
`
`application program available for use by a user at a client.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’578 Patent
`
`A method for management of configurable application programs on a
`
`network comprising the steps of:
`
`
`take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record . . . , including documents
`on file in federal or state courts”) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,
`689 (9th Cir. 2001); Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n. 2 (9th Cir.
`2002)).
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:112
`
`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
`
`installing an application program having a plurality of configurable
`
`preferences and a plurality of authorized users on a server coupled
`
`to the network;
`
`distributing an application launcher program associated with the
`
`application program to a client coupled to the network;
`
`obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences
`
`associated with one of the plurality of authorized users executing
`
`the application launcher program;
`
`obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable
`
`preferences from an administrator; and
`
`executing the application program using the obtained user set and the
`
`obtained administrator set of the plurality of configurable
`
`preferences responsive to a request from the one of the plurality of
`
`authorized users.
`
`Compl., Ex. A (’578 Patent) at 14:63-15:13 (emphases added); id.., Ex. B (’293
`
`Patent) at 21:22-37 (emphases added).
`
`B.
`
`Prior Proceedings on the Asserted Patents
`
`Uniloc’s predecessors first started filing waves of lawsuits asserting the ’293
`
`and ’578 patents in July, 2016. These prior lawsuits were mostly filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, and were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings into various groups,
`depending on which patents2 were asserted and the timing of the complaints. Two
`
`groups of cases are relevant to this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Uniloc began filing lawsuits on two related patents—the ’466 patent and U.S. Patent
`No. 6,728,766 (“the ’766 patent”)—in April 2016. Those patents have been held
`invalid by the Federal Circuit and are not at issue in this litigation. See Uniloc USA,
`Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 10 of 19 Page ID
` #:113
`
`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.
`
`The ADP Cases
`
`Uniloc’s first wave of cases on the ’293 and ’578 patents included cases
`
`against ADP, LLC and several other unrelated defendants in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. These cases were later consolidated for pre-trial purposes with cases against
`
`several other defendants, who were accused of infringing the same patents (the ADP
`
`Cases). After more than a year of litigation and extensive claim construction briefing
`
`and argument, Judge Schroeder issued a 68-page decision in the ADP Cases
`
`construing several key terms of the claims that Uniloc is now asserting against
`
`NetSuite. See Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting the Constructions for the
`
`Disputed and Agreed Terms of the Asserted Patents, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ADP,
`
`LLC, No. 16-cv-00741, D.I. 233 at 4, 6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2017) (Schroeder, J.)
`
`(Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 2 (“Claim Construction Order”)).
`
`For example, and as is relevant to this motion, Judge Schroeder construed the
`
`term “application program(s) / application(s)” to mean “the code associated with the
`
`underlying program functions that is a separate application from a browser interface
`
`and does not execute within the browser window.” Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 2 (Claim
`
`Construction Order) at 19 (emphasis added).
`
`Judge Schroeder’s construction relied on the prosecution history of the related
`
`’466 patent, wherein the applicant argued “that ‘the application launcher program
`
`interacts with the desktop, such as a user browser interface, while an instance of the
`
`application program is requested through the desktop but executes locally at the
`
`client as a separate application from the browser interface. For example, Lotus
`
`Notes would not execute within the browser window.’” Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 2
`
`(Claim Construction Order) at 20 (emphasis in Court’s Order) (quoting prosecution
`
`history). In other words, the applicant argued that “application program(s) /
`
`application(s),” such as Microsoft Word, Excel, or, in the ’466 patent prosecution
`
`history example, Lotus Notes, must be separate from a browser interface and must not
`
`execute within the browser window. Judge Schroeder held that the applicant’s
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`6
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 11 of 19 Page ID
` #:114
`
`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
`
`limiting statements during prosecution of the ’466 patent were equally applicable to
`
`the ’293 and ’578 patents. Id. at 11–14.
`
`On September 28, 2017, Judge Schroeder granted a separate motion to dismiss
`
`Uniloc’s complaints in the ADP cases on the ground that the claims are directed to
`
`ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`
`279 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Tex. 2017). Uniloc appealed, and, on May 24, 2019, the
`
`Federal Circuit reversed and remanded with respect to the ’293 and ’578 patents (but
`
`affirmed the Section 101 ruling with respect to the ’466 and ’766 patents). See
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Uniloc never
`
`appealed the Claim Construction Order, meaning that it will continue to govern on
`
`remand absent reconsideration by Judge Schroeder.
`
`2.
`
`The 2016 NetSuite Case
`
`Uniloc first sued NetSuite for infringement of the ’293 and ’578 patents in
`
`August, 2016, about a month after suing ADP. As with the ADP Cases, Uniloc and
`
`NetSuite disputed the proper construction of numerous claim terms, including
`
`“application program(s) / application(s).” On August 28, 2017, the parties submitted
`
`a joint claim construction and prehearing statement, Berkowitz Decl. ¶ 4, and on
`
`September 22, 2017, Uniloc filed its opening claim construction brief, acknowledging
`
`that, in the context of the related ’466 patent, Judge Schroeder was correct to rule in
`
`the ADP cases that an “application program” must be a separate from the browser
`
`interface and execute outside the browser window. Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. NetSuite, Inc., No. 16-cv-00862, D.I.
`
`117 at 13 (E.D. Tex. September 22, 2017) (Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 3). Uniloc simply
`
`disputed that this was the construction that should apply to the same “application
`
`program” term in the related ’293 and ’578 patents. Id.
`
`On September 29, 2017, before NetSuite filed its responsive claim construction
`
`brief, Uniloc voluntarily dismissed the case. Berkowitz Decl. ¶ 6. Uniloc gave no
`
`reason for this voluntary dismissal, although it came one day after Judge Schroeder
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 12 of 19 Page ID
` #:115
`
`granted the motion to dismiss on Section 101 grounds in the ADP cases. See Rule
`
`41(a)(1)(A)(i) Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`NetSuite, Inc., No. 16-cv-00862, D.I. 120 (E.D. Tex. September 29, 2017) (Berkowitz
`
`Decl., Ex. 4). Uniloc’s dismissal was without prejudice under Rule 41(a) because
`
`NetSuite had its own motion to dismiss outstanding at the time, and hadn’t yet filed
`
`an answer. See Berkowitz Decl. ¶ 6; id., Ex. 4.
`
`C. Uniloc’s Assertions in This Case
`
`Uniloc’s re-filed Complaint in this action against NetSuite completely ignores
`
`Judge Schroeder’s Claim Construction Order and pretends as if none of the prior
`
`litigation ever happened. For example, Uniloc never identifies anything in the
`
`accused NetSuite platform that would even arguably meet Judge Schroeder’s
`
`construction of “application program (s) / application(s),” which, as set out above, is
`
`a limitation in each asserted claim. See supra, Section II.A.
`
`Uniloc’s Complaint simply copies and pastes screenshots of NetSuite’s demo
`
`software. See Compl. ¶¶ 6–17, 26–28. None of these screen shots could be construed
`
`as reflecting “code associated with the underlying program functions that is a separate
`
`application from a browser interface and does not execute within the browser
`
`window.” To the contrary, Uniloc appears to assert that the application programs in
`
`NetSuite’s software open directly within the same internet browser used to access
`
`them, for example, as shown in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of its Complaint asserting
`
`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
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`8
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 13 of 19 Page ID
` #:116
`
`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 of claim 1 of the ’578 patent (reproduced below):
`
`Id. ¶¶ 9–10.
`
`Uniloc does no better with respect to asserted claim 1 of the ’293 patent, which
`
`requires, inter alia, “providing an application program to be distributed to the
`
`network management server,” and “distributing [a] file packet to [a] target on-
`
`demand server to make the application program available for use by a user to a
`
`client.” Compl., Ex. B (’293 patent) at 21:23–37 (emphasis added). Uniloc again
`
`fails to allege that an “application program” is a separate application from a browser
`
`interface and does not execute within the browser window. Indeed, Uniloc fails to
`
`address these limitations under any claim construction, and instead just asserts that
`
`NetSuite uses Apache servers to distribute software from a source directory to a target
`
`directory at the user’s computer. Compl. ¶¶ 26–28.
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`9
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 14 of 19 Page ID
` #:117
`
`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
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Claims for Direct Patent Infringement Are Subject to the Iqbal /
`
`Twombly Pleading Standards and Require More than Conclusory
`
`Statements That a Defendant Infringes
`
`“Claims for direct patent infringement are subject to the pleading standards
`
`established in Twombly and Iqbal.” Sleep Number Corp. v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC,
`
`Nos. ED CV 18-00356-AB (SPx) & ED CV 18-00357-AB (SPx), 2018 WL 5263065,
`
`at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). To survive a motion to dismiss under this standard,
`
`“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 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A plaintiff
`
`must not merely allege conduct that is conceivable; ‘[w]hen a complaint pleads facts
`
`that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line
`
`between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Orgain, Inc. v. N.
`
`Innovations Holding Corp., No. 8:18-cv-01253-JLS-ADS, 2018 WL 7504409, at *2
`
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) (alternation in original and quoting Iqbal, 550 U.S. at 678).
`
`In the patent context, “[m]erely naming a product and providing a conclusory
`
`statement that it infringes a patent is insufficient to meet the ‘plausibility’ standard set
`
`forth in Twombly and Iqbal.” Medsquire LLC v. Spring Med. Sys., Inc., No. 11-cv-
`
`04504-JHN-PLA, 2011 WL 4101093, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011); see also
`
`Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC, No. 16-cv-06795-EJD, 2017 WL 2311407, at
`
`*4 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) (“[M]any of Novitaz’s allegations merely parrot claim
`
`language . . . . These are not factual allegations, as the claim language is what
`
`Novitaz must show in order to prove infringement. Instead, they are ‘[t]hreadbare
`
`recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
`
`statements,’ which ‘do not suffice.’”) (internal citations omitted); Atlas IP LLC v.
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 15-cv-5469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 9, 2016).
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`10
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 15 of 19 Page ID
` #:118
`
`B.
`
`The Court Need Only Adopt a Single, Straightforward Construction
`
`from Judge Schroeder’s Prior Order to Grant This Motion
`
`While it might be premature to engage in full-blown claim construction at the
`
`motion to dismiss stage, Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018), district courts have, even post-Nalco, engaged in claim construction at the
`
`pleading stage when the issues are straightforward and can be decided on the intrinsic
`
`record. See Amgen, Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc., No. 17-546-LPS-CJB, 2018
`
`WL 1517689, at *4, n. 5 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2018) (Chief Judge Stark rejecting
`
`argument that Nalco bars at the pleading stage all disputes over the proper
`
`interpretation of a patent’s intrinsic record, and dismissing complaint where claim
`
`construction issue “turned on the clear and unambiguous prosecution history[]”);
`
`Eagle Pharms., Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC, 382 F. Supp. 3d 341, 345 (D. Del.
`
`2019) (rejecting Eagle’s argument that Nalco precludes resolution of the proper
`
`interpretation of a patent’s intrinsic record at the pleading stage); see also Scripps
`
`Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 16-cv-661 JLS (BGS), 2017 WL 1361623, at *4
`
`(S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017) (“[C]laim construction at the pleading stage may be
`
`appropriate, at the very least, where the Court can construe a claim term ‘based on the
`
`claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history.’”).
`
`This is just such a case. The Court need not analyze the entirety of Judge
`
`Schroeder’s Claim Construction Order, or even engage in a deep review of the
`
`asserted patents in order to construe the term “application program(s) /
`
`application(s).” Uniloc acknowledges that Judge Schroeder’s construction of the
`
`term “application program(s) / application(s)” is correct in the context of the related
`
`’466 patent, stating in its brief in the prior NetSuite case that it “does not object to
`
`[Judge Schroeder’s] construction [of application program(s)], as applied to the ’466
`
`patent.” Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 3 at 13. Uniloc simply disputes that the same
`
`construction should apply to any other related patents.
`
`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
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`11
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 16 of 19 Page ID
` #:119
`
`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
`
`But Judge Schroeder has already considered and rejected Uniloc’s argument as
`
`a matter of law. See Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 2 (Claim Construction Order) at 11-14.
`
`The ’293 patent is a division of the application that led to the ’466 patent; they share a
`common specification.3 See Compl., Ex. B (’293 patent) at cover page; Berkowitz
`
`Decl., Ex. 2 (Claim Construction Order) at 1, n.1. Moreover, the specification of the
`
`’578 patent states, “[t]his application is related to the following application filed
`
`concurrently herewith: [the ’466 patent].” Compl., Ex. A (’578 patent) at 1:6-13;
`
`Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 2 (Claim Construction Order) at 11. Similarly, the ’466 patent
`
`states that “[t]his application is related to the following application filed concurrently
`
`herewith: [the ’578 patent].” Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 2 (Claim Construction Order) at
`
`12. The specifications of the ’578 and ’466 patents also each incorporate the other by
`
`reference. See Compl., Ex. A (’578 patent) at 7:17–21; 11:27–30; Berkowitz Decl.,
`
`Ex. 2 (Claim Construction Order) at 12.
`
`Judge Schroeder ruled that, on these indisputable facts, the prosecution history
`
`of the ’466 patent is “relevant to the construction of identical terms used in the related
`
`’578 and ’293 Patents” as a matter of law. Berkowitz Decl., Ex. 2 (Claim
`
`Construction Order) at 12. Judge Schroeder relied primarily on the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007), which had analogous facts that he quoted as follows:
`
`
`3 A divisional application is one that claims the benefit of an earlier application, and
`includes the same relevant supporting disclosure, but that is directed to an
`independent or distinct invention from the claims in the earlier application. See, e.g.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
`(“MPEP”), Section 201.06 available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff70_1e3be_230.
`The Patent Office will issue a “restriction” requirement when an application includes
`claims directed to more than one invention, which means that, in response, an
`applicant may file one or more divisional applications directed to the additional
`invention(s).
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`12
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 17 of 19 Page ID
` #:120
`
`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
`
`The claims of the ’880 patent originated in U.S. patent application No.
`
`08/814,291 (“’291 application”). During prosecution, the examiner issued
`
`a restriction requirement on th