Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:247
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NETSUITE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
` Case No. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`NETSUITE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Judge:
`Hon. Josephine L. Staton
`Date:
`December 13, 2019
`Time:
`10:30 AM
`Ronald Reagan Federal
`Location:
`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 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:248
`
`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
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`FACTS ................................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Background of the Asserted Patents ......................................................... 2
`B.
`Prior Proceedings on the Asserted Patents ................................................ 5
`1.
`The ADP Cases ............................................................................... 6
`2.
`The 2016 NetSuite Case ................................................................. 7
`C. Uniloc’s Assertions in This Case .............................................................. 8
`III. ARGUMENT..................................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Claims for Direct Patent Infringement Are Subject to the Iqbal /
`Twombly Pleading Standards and Require More than Conclusory
`Statements That a Defendant Infringes ................................................... 11
`The Court Need Only Adopt a Single, Straightforward Construction
`from Judge Schroeder’s Prior Order to Grant This Motion .................... 12
`C. Uniloc’s Complaint Should be Dismissed Because It Does Not
`Sufficiently Allege Infringement Under Judge Schroeder’s Claim
`Construction ............................................................................................ 15
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 16
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:249
`
`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
`
`Pages
`
`Cases
`Amgen, Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc.,
`No. 17-546-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 1517689 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2018) ........................ 12
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 11, 16
`Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`No. 15-cv-5469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ...................... 11
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................... 11, 16
`Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`285 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................... 4
`Dumas v. Kipp,
`90 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................... 16
`Eagle Pharms., Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 341 (D. Del. 2019) ......................................................................... 12
`Harris v. Cnty. of Orange,
`682 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 4
`K Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. DirecTV,
`No. 11-09370-RGK, 2012 WL 13009162 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) ...................... 16
`Lamont v. Time Warner, Inc.,
`No. 12-8030-CAS, 2012 WL 6146681 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012) .......................... 16
`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) .... 11, 16
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 14, 15
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 12
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:250
`
`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
`
`Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC,
`No. 16-cv-06795-EJD, 2017 WL 2311407 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017).................... 11
`Orgain, Inc. v. N. Innovations Holding Corp.,
`No. 8:18-cv-01253-JLS-ADS, 2018 WL 7504409 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) .......... 11
`Scripps Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-661 JLS (BGS), 2017 WL 1361623 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017) .............. 12
`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) .......................................................................... 11
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ....................................................................... 7
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 6, 7
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 13, 14
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:251
`
`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”) has again failed to allege infringement
`under a claim construction ruling on the two patents asserted in this case that was
`issued two years ago by Judge Schroeder in the United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas. Accordingly, Uniloc’s Amended 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. NetSuite moved to dismiss (D.I. 24) and, in response, Uniloc filed an
`Amended Complaint that mostly deleted factual allegations, again basing its
`infringement read, in no uncertain terms, on a proposed construction that Judge
`Schroeder outright rejected.
`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
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:252
`
`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
`
`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 made during prosecution
`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 Amended 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 believed it had an infringement case under Judge
`Schroeder’s claim construction in those related cases, it would have provided it, if not
`in its original Complaint, then certainly in its Amended Complaint, which it filed
`after NetSuite moved to dismiss on these same grounds. Instead, Uniloc’s Amended
`Complaint implicitly acknowledges that its only infringement theory is based on a
`claim construction position already rejected by Judge Schroeder.
`Accordingly, Uniloc’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed. That
`dismissal should be with prejudice because Uniloc has already once amended its
`Complaint and, despite having full knowledge of the dispositive issue at hand,
`declined to set forth any infringement allegation—even in the alternative—that would
`cover NetSuite’s products under Judge Schroeder’s claim construction ruling.
`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 D.I. 1, Compl., Ex. B (’293
`Patent) at 6:60-7:9, FIG. 1 (below); see also id., Ex. A (’578 Patent) at 6:46-62, FIG. 1.
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:253
`
`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
`
`Id., Ex. B (’293 Patent) at FIG. 1.
`According to 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 D.I. 24-3 at 3 (Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ADP, LLC, No. 16-cv-00741, D.I. 151
`(E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) (“the ADP Cases”)) see also D.I. 24-2 ¶ 2.1 Uniloc
`
`1 D.I. 24-3, 24-4, 24-5, and 24-6 are exhibits attached to the Declaration of Matthew
`G. Berkowitz In Support of NetSuite’s Motion to Dismiss Uniloc’s original
`Complaint. See D.I. 24-2. 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 take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`3
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:254
`
`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
`
`asserted in the ADP Cases that the disclosed 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. D.I. 24-3 at 3.
`Uniloc asserts that NetSuite infringes claim 1 of each of the asserted patents.
`Below, emphasis is added to the term “application program” in each claim, because
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:255
`
`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
`
`Claim 1 of the ’578 Patent
`A method for management of configurable application programs on a
`network comprising the steps of:
`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.
`D.I. 1, 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.
`5
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 10 of 20 Page ID
` #:256
`
`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
`In July 2016, Uniloc brought suit in the Eastern District of Texas against ADP,
`LLC, for alleged infringement of, inter alia, the ’293 and ’578 patents. This case was
`consolidated for pre-trial purposes with several others involving similar infringement
`allegations (“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 D.I. 24-4 at 4, 6 (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 (E.D. Tex.
`Aug. 16, 2017) (Schroeder, J.) (“Claim Construction Order”)); see also D.I. 24-2 ¶3.
`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.” D.I. 24-4 (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.’” D.I. 24-4 (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 limiting statements
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`6
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 11 of 20 Page ID
` #:257
`
`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
`
`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 continues to govern in those cases.
`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, D.I. 24-2 ¶ 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 separate from the browser interface and
`execute outside the browser window. D.I. 24-5 at 13 (Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. NetSuite Inc., No. 16-cv-00862, D.I.
`117 (E.D. Tex. September 22, 2017)); see also D.I. 24-2 ¶ 5. Uniloc simply disputed
`that this was the construction that should apply to the same “application program”
`term in the related ’293 and ’578 patents. D.I. 24-5 at 13.
`On September 29, 2017, before NetSuite filed its responsive claim construction
`brief, Uniloc voluntarily dismissed the case. D.I. 24-2 ¶ 6. Uniloc gave no reason for
`this voluntary dismissal, although it came one day after Judge Schroeder granted the
`motion to dismiss on Section 101 grounds in the ADP cases. See D.I. 24-6 (Rule
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 12 of 20 Page ID
` #:258
`
`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
`
`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)); see also
`D.I. 24-2 ¶ 6. 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 id.; D.I. 24-6.
`C. Uniloc’s Assertions in This Case
`1.
`Uniloc’s Original Complaint
`Uniloc’s Original Complaint in this action ignores Judge Schroeder’s Claim
`Construction Order and pretends as if none of the prior litigation ever happened. For
`example, Uniloc never identified 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. Instead, Uniloc’s Complaint simply copied and pasted
`screenshots of NetSuite’s demo software. See D.I. 1, 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 appeared
`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 original complaint asserting infringement of claim 1 of the ’578 patent
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`8
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 13 of 20 Page ID
` #:259
`
`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
`
`(reproduced below):
`
`Id. ¶¶ 9–10.
`Uniloc did 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.” D.I. 1, Compl., Ex. B (’293 patent) at 21:23–37 (emphasis added). Uniloc
`again failed 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. D.I. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 26–28.
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`9
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 14 of 20 Page ID
` #:260
`
`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
`
`2.
`
`NetSuite’s Motion to Dismiss and Uniloc’s First Amended
`Complaint
`On September 12, 2019, NetSuite moved to dismiss Uniloc’s original
`Complaint on the grounds that Uniloc failed to allege infringement (and likely could
`not allege infringement) under Judge Schroeder’s Claim Construction Order. More
`specifically, NetSuite argued that Uniloc’s Complaint failed to allege that NetSuite’s
`software utilized an “application program,” as that term was construed by Judge
`Schroeder, and that this construction turned on just a single and straightforward legal
`issue that the Court could resolve on a motion to dismiss. See D.I. 24.
`On October 2, 2019, Uniloc filed an Amended Complaint rather than respond
`to NetSuite’s motion.3 Uniloc’s Amended Complaint mainly deleted detail about its
`infringement position, including the previously-included screenshots, without adding
`any new substantive allegations. In fact, Uniloc expressly asserted that “[a]n
`application program can be executed on a server within a user’s browser window.”
`D.I. 26, Am. Compl. ¶ 6 (emphasis added). This allegation directly contradicts Judge
`Schroeder’s Claim Construction Order, which defines “application program” as “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.” D.I. 24-
`4 (Claim Construction Order) at 19 (emphasis added). Between its decision to amend
`rather than oppose NetSuite’s motion, and its express allegation in its Amended
`Complaint that an application program can be executed within a browser window, it
`is clear that Uniloc has no infringement case against NetSuite under Judge
`Schroeder’s construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Uniloc declined to amend during the parties’ meet and confer. See D.I. 24-2, ¶ 7.
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`10
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 15 of 20 Page ID
` #:261
`
`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) (alteration 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 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`11
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 16 of 20 Page ID
` #:262
`
`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
`
`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 acknowledged 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.” D.I. 24-5 at 13. Uniloc simply disputes that the same construction should
`apply to any other related patents. Id.
`
`MEMO. ISO NETSUITE’S MOT.
`TO DISMISS 1ST AM. COMPL.
`
`12
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 27-1 Filed 10/16/19 Page 17 of 20 Page ID
` #:263
`
`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 D.I. 24-2 (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.4 See D.I. 1, Compl., Ex. B (’293 patent) at cover page; D.I. 24-4
`(Claim Construction Order) at 1, n.1. Moreover, the specification of the ’578 patent
`states, “