Case3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document236 Filed01/18/11 Page1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`UPI SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`Defendants.
` /
`
`No. C 09-05659 WHA
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN
`PART AND DENYING
`IN PART MAXCHIP’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In this patent and copyright infringement action, defendant Maxchip Electronics
`Corporation moves to dismiss all remaining claims against it for inadequate pleading pursuant to
`FRCP 12(b)(6). This order partially grants Maxchip’s motion to dismiss.
`STATEMENT
`The operative complaint in this action was filed by the Taiwanese company Richtek
`Technology Corporation and its wholly-owned United States subsidiary, Richtek USA, Inc. The
`complaint named seventeen individuals and five companies as defendants, and alleged seven
`claims for relief in total. After the first round of motions to dismiss, all claims against fourteen
`Taiwanese individuals were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and all claims for breach
`of contract and trade-secret misappropriation were dismissed for lack of subject-matter
`jurisdiction. The four claims that now remain in the action accuse all defendants of infringing
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document236 Filed01/18/11 Page2 of 6
`
`three United States patents (counts 1–3) and various United States copyrights (count 7) that
`belong to Richtek Technology. Because Richtek USA was a complaining plaintiff only for the
`trade-secret-misappropriation claim, which was dismissed, Richtek USA is no longer a party to
`this action (Dkt. Nos. 165, 212).
`The factual theory of Richtek’s complaint is that Taiwanese former employees of Richtek
`Technology, along with Powerchip Technology Corporation and uPI Semiconductor Corporation
`(both Taiwanese companies), “devised a complex and elaborate scheme to steal, plunder, and
`cart-away Richtek’s invaluable trade secret and confidential information” (Dkt. No. 79 ¶ 62).
`Using proprietary documents and information stolen from their former employer, the individual
`defendants allegedly designed competing power-management products that infringed plaintiffs’
`intellectual property rights. Defendant uPI allegedly then developed and sold these products in
`conjunction with other defendants. Richtek claims that it has been injured by sales of these
`power-management products to customers in California and the United States.
`Defendant Maxchip now brings a motion to dismiss all remaining claims against it for
`failure to state a claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Maxchip is incorporated in Taiwan and has its
`principal place of business in Taiwan; Richtek alleges that Maxchip was spun off from
`Powerchip in 2008 (Dkt. No. 79 ¶¶ 5–6). Maxchip is alleged to manufacture infringing power-
`management products (ibid. ¶ 36). Richtek accuses Maxchip of infringing its patents directly by
`making these products for sale in the United States and indirectly by inducing defendant uPI to
`sell these products in the United States (id. ¶¶ 82, 90, 98). Maxchip also is alleged to have had
`access to Richtek’s copyrighted works and, without permission, to have “made unauthorized
`copies, prepared derivative works and distributed copies of” these works that are substantially
`similar to the protected works (id. ¶ 77–79). No accused products or works are specifically
`identified in the complaint, and no further information is provided regarding the role Maxchip
`plays in the accused manufacturing and distribution process. Richtek has set forth more specific
`descriptions and allegations only in its briefs and declarations opposing the instant motion to
`dismiss. This order follows full briefing and a hearing on the 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
`
`2
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document236 Filed01/18/11 Page3 of 6
`
`ANALYSIS
`Defendant Maxchip moves to dismiss all claims against it for failure to state a claim upon
`which relief can be granted pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). This motion is GRANTED IN PART AND
`DENIED IN PART.
`A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims
`alleged in the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th
`Cir. 1995). All material allegations of the complaint are taken as true and considered in the light
`most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ibid. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
`motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the
`‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
`formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
`enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (citations omitted).
`Although materials outside of the pleadings generally should not be considered without
`converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment, a district court may consider all
`materials submitted as part of the complaint, including documents to which the complaint
`specifically refers, even if they are not physically appended to the complaint. Hal Roach Studios,
`Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). The complaint
`currently operative in this action is the third amended complaint, which was filed on
`September 28, 2010.1 Copies of the three asserted patents and various copyright registrations are
`appended to this complaint as exhibits (Dkt. No. 79). The sufficiency of the patent and copyright
`claims will be considered in turn.
`A.
`Patent Claims for Relief
`Counts 1–3 of the operative complaint accuse Maxchip of patent infringement.
`Section 271(a) of the United States Patent Act states that “whoever without authority makes, uses,
`offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United
`
`1Richtek has filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint; a hearing on that pending
`motion is scheduled for February 10, 2011.
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document236 Filed01/18/11 Page4 of 6
`
`States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.”
`35 U.S.C. 271(a). A complaint for patent infringement should identify the patents in dispute,
`allege ownership of them, and allege the act that constitutes infringement. See Lans v. Digital
`Equip. Corp., 252 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Richtek’s third amended complaint does so. The complaint identifies the three patents
`that Maxchip is accused of infringing, and a certified copy of each patent is appended to the
`complaint (Dkt. No. 79 Exh. 1–3). The complaint also alleges that Richtek Technology
`Corporation “is the owner of all right and title” to these three patents (ibid. ¶¶ 31–33). Finally,
`the complaint alleges acts that constitute infringement — manufacturing infringing power-
`management products and inducing uPI to sell these products in the United States (id. ¶¶ 36, 82,
`90, 98). Taken together, these allegations state a plausible claim for entitlement to relief
`sufficient to pass muster under Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny.
`Maxchip’s argument that these allegations amount to no more than the type of conclusory
`statements and labels that the Supreme Court deemed inadequate is unpersuasive. Maxchip
`makes much of the fact that the complaint fails to accuse specific Maxchip products, but Maxchip
`does not cite any binding authority for such a requirement. Moreover, the complaint identifies the
`category of Maxchip products that are accused: “power-management products.” Given this
`product-type description, Richtek’s pleadings that Maxchip manufactures products that infringe
`three specific Richtek patents is not “bereft of any meaningful facts” as Maxchip claims (Br. 8).
`Even if only by a small margin, Richtek’s patent-infringement claims against Maxchip rise above
`the level of “labels and conclusions” and “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
`action.” Maxchip’s motion to dismiss the patent infringement claims (counts 1–3) is DENIED.
`B.
`Copyright Claim for Relief
`Richtek’s copyright-infringement claim against Maxchip, on the other hand, does not
`make the cut. Maxchip rightly notes a complete lack of particularity in the amended complaint
`with respect to the copyright-infringement claim, and Richtek fails to identify any pleadings that
`are sufficient to state this claim.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document236 Filed01/18/11 Page5 of 6
`
`In order to establish copyright infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership
`of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Rice v.
`Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2003). As to the second element, Richtek’s
`complaint makes only conclusory statements, reciting the statutory acts that constitute copyright
`infringement without providing any factual allegations to identify Maxchip’s allegedly infringing
`acts or works. The complaint describes the works whose copyrights are allegedly infringed (“data
`schematics, software code, mask works, data sheets and other copyrightable expressions related to
`Richtek’s proprietary design-in process for semiconductors”) but provides no such description of
`the acts or works that allegedly infringe them (Dkt. No. 79 ¶ 75). The closest the complaint
`comes — and the only portion of the complaint Richtek identifies as pleading acts and works by
`Maxchip that infringe its copyrights — are paragraphs 77 and 78:
`77. Upon information and belief, Defendants uPI,
`Powerchip, Maxchip, Silicon Xtal, XYZ Companies 1–4, the
`Former Richtek Employees, Former AMD Employee Ming Chen,
`and John Does 1–10 have had access to Richtek’s Copyright
`Works.
`78. Upon information and belief, Defendants uPI,
`Powerchip, Maxchip, Silicon Xtal, XYZ Companies 1–4, Former
`Richtek Employees, Former AMD Employee Ming Chen, and John
`Does 1–10 have made unauthorized copies, prepared derivative
`works and distributed copies of Richtek’s copyright works (“the
`Accused Works”) all without Richtek’s permission.
`(Dkt. No. 79 ¶¶ 77–78). Richtek’s argument that these paragraphs put Maxchip on notice of its
`copyright infringement contentions is laughable. Unlike the patent infringement pleadings, these
`paragraphs do not identify even a category of works or acts by Maxchip accused of infringement.
`Bald recitations of legal conclusion like those contained in these paragraphs do not state a claim
`upon which relief can be granted. Maxchip’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claim
`against it (count 7) is GRANTED.
`
`CONCLUSION
`Maxchip’s motion to dismiss all claims against it for failure to state a claim upon which
`relief can be granted is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Maxchip’s motion is GRANTED
`as to the copyright infringement claim but DENIED as to the patent infringement claims.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document236 Filed01/18/11 Page6 of 6
`
`Within FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS after motion practice resumes in this action, plaintiffs
`may file a motion on the normal 35-day track seeking leave to file amended pleadings that might
`save the dismissed claim. A proposed amended complaint must be appended to such a motion,
`and the motion should explain clearly why the amended complaint overcomes the deficiencies
`stated herein. If the proposed amendments do not address these deficiencies, they will not be
`allowed.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: January 18, 2011.
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`6