Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1167
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) (D.I. 18, 19)
`
`George Pazuniak DE (No. 478)
`Sean T. O’Kelly (DE No. 4349)
`Daniel P. Murray (DE No. 5785)
`O’Kelly & Ernst, LLC
`901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 478-4230 / 778-4000
`(302) 295-2873 (facsimile)
`gp@del-iplaw.com
`sokelly@oeblegal.com
`dmurray@oeblegal.com
`
`
`Dated: March 7, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civ. No. 1: 16-cv-00830-RGA
`
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO., LLC (d/b/a
`INTUS IQ),
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
` v.
`
`STREETLINE, INC., and KAPSCH
`TRAFFICCOM HOLDING CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 1168
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................................................... - 1 - 
`
`II. 
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................. - 1 - 
`
`III. 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. - 2 - 
`
`A. 
`
`The Patent Claims ................................................................................................. - 2 - 
`
`B.  Defendants’ Infringement ..................................................................................... - 3 - 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`System Claims .......................................................................................................... - 3 - 
`
`Streetline Equipment Plus Program Claims ............................................................. - 4 - 
`
`3.  Method Claims ......................................................................................................... - 7 - 
`
`4. 
`
`Inducement to Infringe ............................................................................................. - 7 - 
`
`IV. 
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. - 8 - 
`
`A. 
`
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................................... - 8 - 
`
`Direct Infringement .................................................................................................. - 8 - 
`
`Inducement to Infringe ............................................................................................. - 9 - 
`
`B. 
`
`Plaintiffs State A Claim for Direct Infringement ................................................ - 10 - 
`
`Plaintiffs Plead That Defendants Literally Infringed Each Limitation ................... - 10 - 
`
`Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege That Defendants’ Infringe ........................................... - 11 - 
`i
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 1169
`
`
`C. 
`
`Plaintiffs State A Claim for Direct Infringement by Kapsch Holding ................ - 14 - 
`
`D. 
`
`Plaintiffs State A Claim for Inducing Infringement ........................................... - 15 - 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Plaintiffs Pled Direct Infringement......................................................................... - 15 - 
`
`Plaintiffs Have Identified the Induced Direct Infringers ........................................ - 16 - 
`
`Plaintiffs Have Pled The Required Mental State .................................................... - 17 - 
`
`Induced Infringement Against Kapsch Holding Is Adequately Pled ..................... - 18 - 
`
`E.  Dismissal With Prejudice Would Be Improper .................................................. - 20 - 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. - 20 - 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 1170
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter,
`
`620 F. App'x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) __________________________________________________________ - 17 -
`
`Applera Corp. v. MJ Research, Inc.,
`
`297 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Conn. 2004) _______________________________________________________ - 19 -
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ______________________________________________________ - 9 -
`
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp.,
`
`189 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ________________________________________________________ - 11 -
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) _________________________________ - 8 -, - 9 -, - 14 -
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`
`543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) _____________________________________________________________ - 18 -
`
`Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay, Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 4385998 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ________________________________________________________ - 18 -
`
`Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`
`2017 WL 374484 (D. Del. 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 603471 (D. Del. 2017) __ - 17 -
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ____________________________________________________________ - 10 -
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 4427209 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ________________________________________________________ - 12 -
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 1171
`
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.,
`
`845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ________________________________________________________ - 9 -, - 16 -
`
`Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) _______________________________________ - 9 -
`
`Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp.,
`
`394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ____________________________________________________________ - 18 -
`
`Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) _____________________________________________________________________ - 15 -
`
`Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc.,
`
`198 F. Supp. 3d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ______________________________________________________ - 16 -
`
`Largan Precision Co. v. Genius Elec. Optical Co.,
`
`646 F. App'x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2016) __________________________________________________________ - 10 -
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc. (Akamai III),
`
` ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2111 (2014) ______________________________________________________ - 10 -
`
`MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`
`545 U.S. 913 (2005) _____________________________________________________________________ - 18 -
`
`Nexeon Ltd. v. Eaglepicher Techs., LLC,
`
`2016 WL 4045474 (D. Del. 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 6093471 (D. Del. 2016) - 19 -
`
`Philips v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., 2016 WL 6246763, slip op. at *2 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2016) __________ - 8 -, - 9 -
`
`Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) _______________________________ - 9 -, - 14 -
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.,
`
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) _______________________________________________________ - 16 -, - 19 -
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 1172
`
`
`Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. 2016) ___________________________________________________________ - 13 -
`
`Scientific Telecommc’ns LLC v. ADTRAN Inc., 2016 WL 4037004, slip op. at *1 (D. Del. Jul. 25, 2016) __ - 8 -, - 9 -
`
`Scripps Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 6834024 (S.D. Cal. 2016) ________________________________________________________ - 12 -
`
`Smith v. Garlock Equip. Co.,
`
`658 F. App'x 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) _________________________________________________________ - 15 -
`
`Sunrise Techs., Inc. v. Cimcon Lighting, Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 6902395 (D. Mass. 2016) ________________________________________________________ - 18 -
`
`Suprema, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`
`626 F. App'x 273 (Fed. Cir. 2015) __________________________________________________________ - 18 -
`
`TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 4703873 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ________________________________________________________ - 12 -
`
`Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`
`846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017) _______________________________________________________ - 10 -, - 18 -
`
`United States ex rel. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 295, 302 (3d Cir. 2011) _________________ - 9 -
`
`Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.,
`
`824 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) _______________________________________________________ - 10 -, - 18 -
`
`Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd.,
`
`850 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Lucent Techs., Inc., v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) - 18 -
`
`Wing Shing Prod. (BVI), Ltd. v. Simatelex Manufactory Co.,
`
`479 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) _______________________________________________________ - 16 -
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 1173
`
`
`Wright’s Well Control Servs., LLC v. Oceaneering Int'l, Inc.,
`
`2017 WL 568781 (E.D. La. 2017) __________________________________________________________ - 12 -
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) _________________________________________________________________________ - 9 -
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ____________________________________________________________________ - 14 -
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 8 ___________________________________________________________________________ - 8 -
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a)(2) __________________________________________________________________ passim
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 1174
`
`
`Plaintiffs SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby submit this
`
`memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) filed by
`
`Defendants Streetline, Inc. (“Streetline”) and Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp. (“Kapsch”)
`
`(collectively “Defendants”) (D.I. 18, 19).
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiffs SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC filed this patent infringement action against
`
`Defendants on September 19, 2016, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,908,842 (“the
`
`‘842 patent”), 8,625,496 (“the ‘496 patent”), 8,233,471 (“the ‘47l patent”), 8,223,010 (“the ‘010
`
`patent”), 7,697,492 (“the ‘492 patent”), 7,468,661 (“the ‘66l patent”), 7,103,511 (“the ‘51l
`
`patent”), 6,914,893 (“the ‘893 patent”), 6,437,692 (“the ‘692 patent”) and 6,249,516 (“the ‘516
`
`patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”). (D.I. 1).
`
`On November 18, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`(D.I. 7, 8), which the Court granted by Order of January 20, 2017. (D.I. 15). Plaintiffs thereafter
`
`filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement. (D.I. 16).
`
`Defendants responded by filing a second Motion to Dismiss and opening brief. (D.I. 18,
`
`19). This is Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ second Motion to Dismiss.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`Defendants misconstrue both the Court’s prior order and the law. Defendants cite
`
`no authority where a complaint having the type of detailed allegations as in the Amended
`
`Complaint was held insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a)(2). The Amended Complaint
`
`delineates the accused instrumentality with great specificity, including the details of the
`
`hardware and the communication protocol used by those components. In addition, the Amended
`
`Complaint identifies by name certain programs or interfaces which are relevant to certain claims
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 1175
`
`
`that call for such programs/interfaces. These components correspond to the elements of the
`
`asserted claims, and all elements in the claims find a direct correlation to the components
`
`specified in the Amended Complaint. Defendants cannot identify any claimed element that
`
`cannot be found within the components recited within the Amended Complaint.
`
`Defendants erroneously assert that Rule 8(a)(2) “requires allegations that show how the
`
`features of the accused product match up to the elements of at least one claim,” and must “show
`
`that the accused products satisfy … all the elements of a claim.” Defendants cite no authority
`
`and there is none, because Defendants demand claim charts, not pleadings.
`
`2.
`
`The Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 22-25 plausibly allege that Kapsch committed acts
`
`of direct infringement by directly selling and/or offering for sale the accused instrumentality,
`
`based on Kapsch’s admitted advertisement and promotion of the accused system. Plaintiffs are
`
`not required to plead “invoices or receipts of sales,” and the Kapsch’s website marketing
`
`material supports the inference of actual sales or offers for sale.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs adequately pled inducement to infringe. Plaintiffs are not required to
`
`plead specific customers who were induced, and have pled the requisite intent in the usual
`
`manner by pleading that the original complaint constituted notice of infringement.
`
`4.
`
`Even if the Amended Complaint were in some fashion incomplete, there is no
`
`basis for dismissing the case with prejudice.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. The Patent Claims
`
`The claims of the asserted Patents are directed to wireless mesh networks comprising a
`
`series of node devices which exchange data with a manager gateway, and, in some claims, with a
`
`user program for accessing and interacting with the node devices and the data generated by those
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 1176
`
`
`devices. Such mesh networks are useful for, among other things, real-time collecting and
`
`monitoring data produced by multiple geographically dispersed sensors, such as parking nodes,
`
`to monitor automobile parking space availability.
`
`The asserted patent claims are collected in the Appendix attached hereto. Some claims
`
`are directed to a mesh system of such nodes and gateways (A-3, 4-5, 9, 10, 12). Claim 16 of the
`
`‘842 Patent is directed to the mesh node devices, while Claim 1 of the ‘516 Patent is directed to
`
`the server, used in the wireless mesh networking system. (A-1, 13). Other claims, including are
`
`directed to the methods for communicating data by way of the above-described mesh networks
`
`utilizing the mesh system of the nodes and gateways. (A-2, 7-8, 11).
`
`B. Defendants’ Infringement
`
`1. System Claims
`
`Consistently with the Court’s prior Order, the Amended Complaint identifies the specific
`
`parking system accused of infringement. (D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 18-21). The Amended Complaint
`
`identifies the node devices by model number. (D.I. 16 at ¶ 18). The pleading also identifies the
`
`representative “ultralow power, LTC5800 and/or LTP5903 System-on-Chip” chips believed to
`
`be used in all Defendants’ mesh devices. (D.I. 16 at ¶ 19). The Amended Complaint also
`
`specifies the particular communication protocol that is utilized by the foregoing devices/chips,
`
`and particularly Defendants’ use of the “WirelessHART (IEC62591) and IEEE 802.15.4e
`
`wireless mesh networking standards,” to form the fully redundant wireless self-forming, self-
`
`healing multi-hop mesh network of nodes to monitor and to collect and relay data. (D.I. 16 at ¶
`
`19).
`
`The Amended Complaint then states that Defendants infringe the asserted patent claims
`
`“by making, having had made, using, offering for sale and selling, or offering for use and using,
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 1177
`
`
`a wireless network system” comprising the above-described Defendants’ system of the specified
`
`node devices and gateways, which utilize utilizing the above-identified chips (or their functional
`
`equivalents), and which incorporate the “WirelessHART (IEC62591) and IEEE 802.15.4e
`
`wireless mesh networking standards” (i.e., the “Streetline Equipment”). (See, for example, D.I.
`
`16 ¶¶ 29, 34, 42, 47)
`
`2. Streetline Equipment Plus Program Claims
`
`The Amended Complaint also alleges that Defendants make, use and sell the Streetline
`
`Equipment integrated with one or more of related application programs and interfaces. (D.I. 16 at
`
`¶ 20). The Amended Complaint identifies these programs by their trademark names and
`
`function. (Id). These specifically-identified programs/interfaces are collectively referred to as
`
`“Streetline Programs.” (Id).
`
`The Amended Complaint thereafter identifies the particular patent claims that are
`
`infringed by the combination of the Streetline Equipment and a Streetline Program. See, for
`
`example, D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 29, 47 and 75, which reference infringement by “a wireless network
`
`system comprising the Streetline Equipment in combination with one or more of the Streetline
`
`Programs.” Those asserted claims read directly on the allegations of the Amended Complaint in
`
`¶¶ 18-21. For example, the following is representative of the asserted system claims:
`
`A system for remote data collection, assembly, and storage comprising:
`
`a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and
`stores select information for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located
`device, said computer integrated with a wide area network (WAN);
`
`at least one wireless transmitter configured to transmit select information and
`transmitter identification information;
`
`a plurality of relatively low-power radio-frequency (RF) transceivers dispersed
`geographically at defined locations configured to receive select information
`transmitted from at least one nearby wireless transmitter and further configured to
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 1178
`
`
`transmit the select information, the transmitter identification information and
`transceiver identification information; and
`
`at least one gateway connected to the wide area network configured to receive and
`translate the select information, the transmitter identification information, and
`transceiver identification information, said gateway further configured to farther
`transmit the translated information to the computer over the WAN.
`
`(A-12). Comparing the plain language of the above representative claim to the plain language of
`
`the Amended Complaint, one can immediately see that:
`
`-
`
`the parking sensors and repeaters with the LTC5800 system-on-a-chip identified in
`
`the Amended Complaint in ¶¶ 18-19, as shown in the following portion of the
`
`drawing in ¶ 19:
`
`
`
`correspond to the claimed “at least one wireless transmitter configured to transmit
`
`select information and transmitter identification information” and “plurality of
`
`relatively low-power radio-frequency (RF) transceivers”;
`
`-
`
`the gateway identified with the LTP5903 system on-a-chip in the Amended
`
`Complaint in ¶¶ 18-19, as shown in the following portion of the drawing in ¶ 19:
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 1179
`
`
`
`
`corresponds to the claimed “gateway connected to the wide area network configured
`
`to receive and translate the select information”;
`
`-
`
`the “WirelessHART (IEC62591) and IEEE 802.15.4e wireless mesh networking
`
`standards” cited in the Amended Complaint in ¶ 19 are the communication protocol
`
`component of the Streetline Equipment that corresponds to the claimed feature of
`
`“configured to receive select information transmitted from at least one nearby
`
`wireless transmitter and further configured to transmit the select information, the
`
`transmitter identification information and transceiver identification information”; and
`
`-
`
`the “Streetline Programs” identified in the Amended Complaint in ¶ 20 constitute the
`
`claimed “at least one computer program that formats and stores select information for
`
`retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device, said computer integrated with
`
`a wide area network (WAN)” and are the host applications shown in ¶ 19:
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, there is a direct correspondence between the accused instrumentality described in
`
`the Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 18-21 and the asserted system patent claims.
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 1180
`
`
`3. Method Claims
`
`The Amended Complaint further identifies the method claims that are infringed, and
`
`states the reason for infringement. See, for example, D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 35 and 52 (“by practicing the
`
`method of providing wireless network communication through the implementation and use of
`
`Streetline Equipment”); and D.I. 16 at ¶ 68 (“by practicing the method of communicating
`
`between geographically remote devices through the implementation and use of Streetline
`
`Equipment in combination with one or more of the Streetline Programs”). The terms “Streetline
`
`Equipment” and “Streetline Programs” are defined terms in the Amended Complaint. D.I. 16 at
`
`¶¶ 18-20. Because the terms are defined, the method allegations identify the exact reason for the
`
`infringement – Defendants infringe some method claims because Defendants practice a method
`
`of communication utilizing the Streetline Equipment, which comprises the described nodes,
`
`gateways and communications standards (“WirelessHART (IEC62591) and IEEE 802.15.4e
`
`wireless mesh networking standards”), implemented with the identified “systems-on-a-chip.”
`
`Other method claims are infringed when Defendants communicated via the Streetline Equipment
`
`with the additional functions provided by one or more of the identified Streetline Programs.
`
`Again, after this a short and plain statement of Defendants’ infringement, the next step is proving
`
`the pleading by serving the infringement contentions.
`
`4. Inducement to Infringe
`
`The Amended Complaint also properly alleges inducement to infringe by both Streetline
`
`and Kapsch. The particular inducements are identified. For example, as noted above, the
`
`Amended Complaint alleges that Streetline “provides a parking management solution to
`
`governmental entities” where the “solution includes” the “Streetline Equipment.” (D.I. 16 at ¶¶
`
`17-18). Amended Complaint further alleges that the normal use by governmental entities or
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 1181
`
`
`other users of the Streetline Equipment and Programs constitutes direct infringement of the
`
`method claims. See, for example, D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 30, 36, 38, 43, 48. Thus, the Amended Complaint
`
`alleges that “Defendant Streetline has infringed and continues to infringe … by intentionally
`
`inducing persons to practice the patented methods … through the implementation and use of
`
`Streetline Equipment in combination with one or more of the Streetline Programs.” (D.I. 16 at ¶¶
`
`36, 69). In short, the Amended Complaint includes an unremarkable and straightforward
`
`assertion that by marketing and providing to governmental entities a system, the normal practice
`
`of which requires infringement of a method claim, Streetline has induced the governmental
`
`entities to practice the method claims and thus to directly infringe.
`
`As to Kapsch, the Amended Complaint incorporates Kapsch’s website which encourages
`
`users to practice the Streetline Equipment and Programs. (D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 22-25). The Amended
`
`Complaint further states that the above-described inducement by Kapsch for the users to acquire
`
`and use the Streetline Equipment and Programs constitutes inducement to infringe of the method
`
`claims. (See, for example, D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 38, 53, 71).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`1. Direct Infringement
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 8(a)(2)requires that a complaint must contain a “short and plain
`
`statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Philips v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., 2016 WL 6246763 at
`
`*2 (D. Del. 2016). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the “court’s determination is not whether the
`
`non-moving party ‘will ultimately prevail’ but whether that party is ‘entitled to offer evidence to
`
`support the claims.’” Scientific Telecommc’ns LLC v. ADTRAN Inc., 2016 WL 4037004 at *1
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 1182
`
`
`(D. Del. 2016) (quoting United States ex rel. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 295,
`
`302 (3d Cir. 2011)). When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
`
`12(b)(6), a court must take the facts alleged as true and view those facts in the light most
`
`favorable to the plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008);
`
`Philips, 2016 WL 6246763, at *2. The court may consider “the pleadings, public record, orders,
`
`exhibits attached to the complaint, and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference.”
`
`Scientific Telecommc’ns, at *1.
`
`Detailed factual allegations are not required, but facts must be pled that, when accepted
`
`as true, state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Twombly, at 570; see also Ashcroft
`
`v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court must decide whether facts pled in a Complaint
`
`state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,
`
`210 (3d Cir. 2009); Philips, 2016 WL 6246763, at *2. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
`
`pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
`
`liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, at 678. As the Supreme Court noted, the plausibility
`
`requirement is not akin to a “probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for
`
`enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal” that the defendant is
`
`liable for the alleged misconduct. Twombly, at 556.
`
`2. Inducement to Infringe
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent
`
`shall be liable as an infringer.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d
`
`1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Liability for induced infringement under §
`
`271(b) “must be predicated on direct infringement.” Eli Lilly, supra, 845 F.3d at 1363-64
`
`(quoting Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc. (Akamai III), ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 1183
`
`
`2111, 2117 (2014)). The patentee must also show that the alleged infringer possessed the
`
`requisite intent to induce infringement, which requires that the alleged infringer knew his actions
`
`would induce actual infringements. Eli Lilly, supra, 845 F.3d at 1364(quoting DSU Med. Corp.
`
`v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc in relevant part) (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted)).
`
`“To prove induced infringement, a patentee must show ‘the accused inducer took an
`
`affirmative act to encourage infringement with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute
`
`patent infringement.’” Largan Precision Co. v. Genius Elec. Optical Co., 646 F. App'x 946, 948
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). “A patentee is entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence to establish” inducing
`
`infringement. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F.3d 1190, 1204 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). The “requisite intent to induce infringement may be inferred from all of the
`
`circumstances.” Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 824 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`B. Plaintiffs State A Claim for Direct Infringement
`
`Defendants misstate the law and Plaintiffs’ pleadings in asserting that Plaintiffs failed to
`
`state direct infringement of the patent claims. (D.I. 19 at pp. 7-11). Defendants have not cited
`
`any authority by any court that a pleading containing the level of detail included in the Amended
`
`Complaint is insufficient under Rule 8(a)(2) to plead infringement.
`
`1. Plaintiffs Plead That Defendants Literally Infringed Each Limitation
`
`Defendants erroneously argue that Plaintiffs failed to plead that Defendants’ accused
`
`system and method met each element of each asserted claim. (D.I. 19 at pp. 7-8). Defendants
`
`err, because Plaintiffs pled in detail the Streetline Equipment and the Streetline Programs that are
`
`the basis of each and every infringement claim. (D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 18-21). Plaintiffs then pled that,
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 1184
`
`
`depending on the particular asserted patent claim, either the Streetline Equipment by itself, or the
`
`combination of the Streetline Equipment and a Program, literally infringed the asserted patent
`
`claim. See, for example, D.I. 16 at ¶¶ 29, 34, 35, 36, 42 (“literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents”). Similarly Plaintiffs pled that the Defendants literally infringed method claims by
`
`practicing the method provided by the Streetline Equipment combined with one or more of the
`
`Streetline Programs. A pleading of literal infringement by definition means that the accused
`
`instrumentality incorporates each and every element of the patent claim.
`
`2. Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege That Defendants’ Infringe
`
`Defendants cite Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., 189 F. Supp. 3d 768, 776 (N.D. Ill. 2016),
`
`to argue that a complaint must plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that “each and every element
`
`of [each and every] patent claim” was met by the accused instrumentality. But Defendants quote
`
`entirely out of context. The issue in Atlas was that “Atlas impliedly concede[d] that the Network
`
`Products would not function as Claim 1 describes when two or more Smart Meters are
`
`networked with a single Access Point,” and that “Atlas' claim for relief therefore rests on not one
`
`but three untenable positions” so that “Atlas has brought a hopeless lawsuit of precisely the sort
`
`that the last decade's interpretation of and amendments to the Rules were intended to dispose of
`
`quickly and even to deter outright.” Atlas IP, supra, 189 F. Supp. 3d at 776. Thus, Atlas
`
`addressed a sui generis situation. In any event, the case merely required that the pleading
`
`contain the elements of the claims. It did not imposed a novel pleading requirement that a
`
`Plaintiff must separately discuss each and every element of every asserted claim.
`
`The remaining cases cited by Defendants do not support Defendants’ position, and
`
`Defendants’ quotations are entirely out of context. The cases cited by Defendants did not require
`
`that the complaint separately delineate where every claim element is found in an accused
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 20 Filed 03/07/17 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 1185
`
`
`instrumentality, but only required that the complaint sufficiently plead facts that could support
`
`infringement of each claim element. Thus, in Scripps Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc., 2016 WL
`
`6834024 (S.D. Cal. 2016), the Court expressly held that
`
`the Court's holding does not require a patentee to plead with the specificity
`required in its infringement contentions, which Plaintiff seems to suggest. As
`Plaintiff explains, its infringement contentions “will provide information
`concerning how each limitation of the asserted claims [is] met by the accused
`products.”
`
`2016 WL 6834024 at *6 (internal citations omitted). The issue in Scripps Research was that the
`
`pleading contained sparse information about the accused product, and “several limitations in
`
`claim 1 that are not encompassed—much less addressed—by Plaintiff's allegations.” (Id). That
`
`is not the case here, because all the elements of the asserted claims are encompassed by and can
`
`be found in the components addressed in the Amended Complaint.
`
`
`
`In Wright’s Well Control Servs., LLC v. Oceaneering Int'l, Inc., 2017 WL 568781 (E.D.
`
`La. 2017), the complaint did not identify the asserted claims and pled nothing about the accused
`
`product: “WWCS's complaint is devoid of any factual allegations relating to any of the
`
`limitations contained in the claims in its patents,” and, as in Scripps Research, claimed elements
`
`could not be identified in anything pled in the complaint. 2017 WL 568781 at *5. Similarly, in
`
`TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc., 2016 WL 4703873 (C.D. Cal. 2016), the complaint merely named
`
`a product and alleged infringement without citing any particular claim and without describing
`
`any facts that relate th