Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 24 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1404
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO., LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`STREETLINE, INC., KAPSCH
`TRAFFICCOM HOLDING CORP., and
`KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM U.S. CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 16-830-RGA
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting direct infringement of ten patents against two
`
`defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 7), which I
`
`granted. (D.I. 15). I stated as part of the basis for dismissal: "The complaint makes no attempt to
`
`connect anything in the patent claims to anything about any of the accused products." (Id. at 3).
`
`I gave Plaintiffs leave to amend, and Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint ("F AC").
`
`(D.I. 16). Defendants again moved to dismiss. (D.I. 18). I now consider that motion.
`
`The F AC adds a third defendant and assertions of indirect infringement, but the main
`
`relevant change is that the FAC now describes the accused product in some detail (D.I. 16, iM! 17-
`
`21 ), albeit detail that is only understandable (if at all) by a person of ordinary skill in the art. For
`
`example, "The Streetline Equipment [which includes "sensors, repeaters and gateways," see id.,
`
`if18] integrates ... 'motes-on-a-chip' supplied by [a third party], which 'motes-on-a-chip' are
`
`fully compliant to the Wireless HART (IEC62591) and IEEE 802.15.4e wireless mesh
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 24 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1405
`
`networking standards to form fully redundant wireless self-forming, self-healing multi-hop mesh
`
`network of nodes or motes to monitor and to collect and relay data, and specifically meet the
`
`standards for IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006, Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
`
`Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANS), and
`
`are represented by the ultralow power LTC5800 and/or LTP 5903 System-on-Chip." (D.I. 16,
`
`ifl 9).
`
`I looked at the patent asserted in Count I of the FAC. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
`
`Streetline infringes the '842 patent's claim 16 by making, using, or selling "a wireless network
`
`system comprising the Streetline Equipment in combination with one or more of the Streetline
`
`Programs." (D.I. 16, if 29). The patent is entitled "multi-functional general purpose transceivers
`
`and devices." Claim 16 describes a "device for communicating information," which includes a
`
`processor and a memory, with the memory containing "logical instructions that when executed ..
`
`. are configured to cause the device to: wirelessly transmit a signal .. to a network of addressable
`
`low-power transceivers; [connect at least one of the low-power transceivers to a central location];
`
`and receive one or more low-power RF signals and communicate information contained within
`
`the signals to the central location [along with an identifier]." (D.I. 1-1at20). 1
`
`The full claim reads:
`
`A device for communicating information, the device comprising:
`
`1. a processor; and
`
`a memory, the memory comprising logical instructions that when executed by the processor are configured to cause
`the device to:
`
`wirelessly transmit a signal comprising instruction data for delivery to a network of addressable low-power
`transceivers;
`
`establish a communication link between at least one low-power transceiver in the network of addressable low-power
`transceivers and a central location based on an address included in the signal, the communication link comprising
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 24 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1406
`
`The patent's claim seems very broad. I think a "chip" at least implies a processor and
`
`probably memory. The diagram at D.I. 16, if 19, shows a "controller," which I would understand
`
`likely includes a processor and memory. Ultralow power LTC5800 and LTP5903 might well be
`
`low power transceivers. The diagram shows signals; maybe they are RF signals. Synthesizing
`
`the above, particularly in connection with the diagram in the FAC's if 19, it might be the case that
`
`Streetline sells a device that infringes this patent. On the other hand, I am not an engineer and I
`
`have not been provided with "a short and plain statement" from which I can say, viewing the
`
`allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
`
`infringement. Plaintiffs do not actually say that the Streetline Equipment is a "device" or a
`
`transceiver, which would seem to be required by Claim 16.
`
`I think it is incumbent on a plaintiff to provide a readable document that plausibly alleges
`
`infringement. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). There are
`
`numerous district court decisions that require, to plausibly state a claim for patent infringement,
`
`that the complaint relate its factual allegations to an asserted claim of the patent. See, e.g.,
`
`Novitaz, Inc. v. Jnmarket Media, LLC, 2017 WL 2311407, *4 (N.D. Ca. May 26, 2107)
`
`(dismissing direct infringement claims where the complaint "makes no factual allegations about
`
`how the [named accused products] operate, let alone map this information onto any elements of
`
`one or more low-power transceivers in the network of addressable low-power transceivers; and
`
`receive one or more low-power RF signals and communicate information contained within the signals to the central
`location along with a unique transceiver identification number over the communication link.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 B2 (D.I. 1-1 at 20).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 24 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1407
`
`any of the claims of the [asserted patent]"); TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc., 2016 WL 4703873, *3
`
`(C.D. Ca. Aug. 3, 2016) (requiring "allegations sufficient to 'permit [the] court to infer that the
`
`accused product infringes each element of at least one claim"); Rabern, Inc. v. Glasscrafiers,
`
`Inc., 206 F.Supp.3d 1005, 1011 (D.N.J. 2016) (dismissing infringement allegations where the
`
`complaint "made no attempt to describe the alleged infringement and also failed to relate factual
`
`assertions to the pertinent claims in the [asserted] patent"); Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., 189
`
`F.Supp.3d 768, 775 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ("factual allegations that do not permit a court to infer that
`
`the accused product infringes each element of at least one claim are not suggestive of
`
`infringement-they are merely compatible with infringement"); Raindance Techs, Inc. v. 1 OX
`
`Genomics, Inc., 2016 WL 927143, *2 (D.Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ("Plaintiff makes no attempt to
`
`relate any [of] their factual assertions with any of the asserted claims"). I do not think providing
`
`me a copy of the patent and a description of the product, at least in this case, meets the required
`
`standard.
`
`Counts II through X follow the same basic format as Count I. Given that I am not
`
`satisfied that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged any infringement in Count I, I am not going to
`
`examine Counts II through X until Plaintiffs have given those counts their best shot.
`
`Therefore, I do not need to reach or consider Defendants' numerous other arguments.
`
`I am disappointed that Plaintiffs did not take my last order a little more seriously, but I
`
`will nevertheless give them another chance to amend the complaint to meet the requirement that
`
`the complaint make plausible allegations of infringement. This will be their last chance. They
`
`should not throw away their shot.
`
`The motion to dismiss (D.I. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have three weeks within which
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 24 Filed 06/21/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1408
`
`they may amend their complaint.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this ~I day of June 2017.
`
`5
`
`