Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 323
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`MEDICAL SCHOOL and CARMEL
`LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`L’ORÉAL S.A. and L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-868-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jeffrey L. Moyer (#3309)
`Katharine L. Mowery (#5629)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`moyer@rlf.com
`mowery@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal S.A.
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Dennis S. Ellis
`Katherine F. Murray
`Paul Hastings LLP
`515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA, 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`(202) 551-1990
`
`Blaine M. Hackman
`Paul Hastings LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`
`Dated: August 23, 2017
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 324
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................... 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Allegations in Support of Plaintiffs’ Claims .................................................. 3
`
`Correspondence Relating to the Complaint ........................................................... 6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims ........................................................ 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The FAC Does Not Adequately Plead Direct Infringement ...................... 9
`
`The FAC Does Not Adequately Plead Induced Infringement ................. 12
`
`The FAC Does Not Adequately Plead Contributory Infringement ......... 13
`
`The FAC Does Not Adequately Plead Willful Infringement ................... 13
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Repeated Failure to Plausibly Allege Infringement Warrants
`Dismissing the FAC with Prejudice ..................................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 325
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Benak ex rel. Alliance Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance Capital Mgmt. L.P.,
`435 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2006).......................................................................................................8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................1, 7, 8
`
`Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp.,
`212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................10
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...........................................................................................................2, 7, 9
`
`In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.,
`114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997).....................................................................................................8
`
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962) .............................................................................................................8, 14
`
`Gibbs v. Coupe,
`192 F. Supp. 3d 503 (D. Del. 2016) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Global–Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ...................................................................................................2, 3, 12, 13
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .........................................................................................................3, 14
`
`Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Mgmt. LLC,
`305 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................14
`
`M2M Solutions LLC v. Telit Commc’ns PLC,
`No. 14–1103–RGA, 2015 WL 4640400 (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2015) .............................................12
`
`Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc.,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ......................................................................................9, 10
`
`Mayne Pharma Int’l PTY Ltd. v. Merck & Co.,
`No. 15-438-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 7833206 (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2015) ..........................................14
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`No. 16–115–LPS–CJB, 2016 WL 7107230 (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2016) ..........................................7
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 326
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ..................................................11
`
`S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd.,
`181 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 1999).......................................................................................................8
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 351 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................9
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB,
`No. 15-871-LPS, 2016 WL 3748772 (D. Del. July 12, 2016) .................................................13
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). .....................................................................................................................1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 .............................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 327
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`On June 30, 2017, plaintiffs University of Massachusetts Medical School (“UMass”) and
`
`Carmel Laboratories, LLC (“Carmel Labs”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against
`
`L’Oréal USA, Inc. (“L’Oréal USA”) and L’Oréal S.A. alleging that L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal S.A.
`
`infringe two patents covering methods of applying topical compositions containing adenosine to
`
`skin (the “Complaint”). On August 4, 2017, in accordance with a stipulation extending L’Oréal
`
`USA’s deadline to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint (D.I. 4), L’Oréal USA
`
`moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6)
`
`(“L’Oréal USA’s Motion to Dismiss”). (D.I. 7-10.) On August 18, 2017, the date Plaintiffs’
`
`response to the Motion to Dismiss was due, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”),
`
`which was essentially identical to their Complaint, and which contains the same deficiencies
`
`identified by L’Oréal USA in its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.1 (D.I. 13)
`
`L’Oréal USA now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC with prejudice under Rule 8(a)(2) and
`
`12(b)(6).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The FAC leaves Plaintiffs’ inadequately pled Complaint effectively unchanged and now
`
`confirms that, despite their opportunity to do so, Plaintiffs cannot plead any infringement claims
`
`against L’Oréal USA. Accordingly, the FAC should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule
`
`12(b)(6). Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement of [each] claim showing that the pleader is
`
`entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-
`
`defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`Complaints must allege sufficient facts to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .”
`
`
`1 L’Oréal S.A. separately plans to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the FAC on or by October
`16, 2017, the stipulated deadline for L’Oréal S.A.’s response to the FAC. (D.I. 14.)
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 328
`
`
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Just like its original Complaint, Plaintiffs’
`
`FAC falls far short of meeting this burden for any of the asserted claims.
`
`Before and since Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint, Plaintiffs have been repeatedly
`
`notified that their infringement allegations are unfounded. (See, e.g., D.I. 8; Declaration of
`
`Katherine Murray (“Murray Decl.”), filed concurrently herewith, ¶¶ 3-5, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs
`
`previously disregarded L’Oréal USA’s concerns. (See, e.g., Murray Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Now, even
`
`after L’Oréal USA identified in its Motion to Dismiss the specific deficiencies with Plaintiffs’
`
`claims, (see D.I. 8), Plaintiffs chose to exercise their only right to amend without leave by changing
`
`nothing from their original Complaint but a new prayer for injunctive relief. (D.I. 13 at pp. 12-13.)2
`
`The lack of any substantive change to their infringement claims effectively demonstrates that
`
`Plaintiffs cannot cure those deficiencies and counsels toward not only dismissal of the FAC, but
`
`dismissal with prejudice. Indeed, the FAC recites the identical conclusory allegations as made in the
`
`Complaint that by “making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell” mostly unspecified products (the
`
`“Accused Adenosine Products”), L’Oréal USA directly infringes the asserted patent claims. (See
`
`D.I. 1, ¶¶ 37, 47; D.I. 13, ¶¶ 37, 47.) Thus, the FAC lacks plausible explanation as to how such
`
`products could be used in an infringing manner, as required by the asserted method claims.
`
`Plaintiffs’ indirect infringement allegations also remain insufficient. For inducement (see
`
`D.I. 13, ¶¶ 42, 52), the FAC fails to (i) identify how the Accused Adenosine Products could be used
`
`in an infringing manner, (ii) allege that L’Oréal USA knowingly induced third-party infringement of
`
`the asserted claims, and (iii) allege that L’Oréal USA possessed specific intent to encourage a third
`
`party’s infringement. See Global–Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011).
`
`Similar deficiencies plague Plaintiffs’ contributory infringement allegations, as Plaintiffs again fail
`
`2 Specifically, besides non-substantive changes (e.g., filing date, etc.), Plaintiffs’ only change was to
`add a prayer for relief of a “permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from further infringing U.S.
`Patents Nos. 6,423,327 and 6,645,513” (see D.I. 13 at pp. 12-13). For the Court’s convenience,
`attached as Exhibit D to the Murray Declaration is a redline comparing the FAC to the Complaint.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 329
`
`
`
`to plead that L’Oréal USA had knowledge that use of a “combination for which” the Accused
`
`Adenosine Products were “especially designed was both patented and infringing.” (See D.I. 13, ¶¶
`
`43, 53.) Global-Tech, 563 U.S. at 763.
`
`The same deficiencies that afflicted Plaintiffs’ willful infringement allegations in its original
`
`Complaint also remain in the FAC. (See D.I. 13, ¶¶ 56-58.) In addition to failing to sufficiently
`
`plead direct and indirect infringement, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to substantiate their
`
`allegation that L’Oréal USA intentionally or knowingly infringed the asserted patents. Halo Elecs.,
`
`Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1926, 1932-33 (2016).
`
`Because of the many pleading deficiencies plaguing Plaintiffs’ claims for relief and their
`
`inability to address those deficiencies in amending their original Complaint, L’Oréal USA
`
`respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion to Dismiss the FAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
`
`with prejudice.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. The Allegations in Support of Plaintiffs’ Claims
`
`The allegations in support of Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement remain unchanged from the
`
`original Complaint (see D.I. 1) to the FAC. (See D.I. 13; see also Murray Decl., Ex. D, Redline
`
`Comparison of D.I. 1 and D.I. 13.)
`
`Plaintiffs still allege that L’Oréal USA directly and/or indirectly infringes, by induced and/or
`
`contributory infringement, claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,423,327 (the “’327 patent”) in Count
`
`I (D.I. 13, ¶¶ 35-44) and claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,645,513 (the “’513 patent”) in Count II.
`
`(D.I. 13, ¶¶ 11, 45-54.) Claim 1 of the ’327 patent recites:
`
`“A method for enhancing the condition of unbroken skin of a mammal
`by reducing one or more of wrinkling, roughness, dryness, or laxity of
`the skin, without increasing dermal cell proliferation, the method
`comprising topically applying to the skin a composition comprising a
`concentration of adenosine in an amount effective to enhance the
`condition of the skin without increasing dermal cell proliferation,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 330
`
`
`
`
`wherein the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-4
`M to 10-7 M.”
`
`(D.I. 13, ¶ 12; D.I. 13-1 at 10:18-26.) Claim 1 of the ’513 patent is identical, except that it requires
`
`that “the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-3 M to 10-7 M.” (D.I. 13, ¶ 12;
`
`D.I. 13-2 at 10:18-26.) Dependent claim 9 of both the ’327 and ’513 patents, recites “[t]he method
`
`of claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises a transdermal agent.” (D.I. 13, ¶ 13; D.I. 13-
`
`1 at 10:43-44; D.I. 13-2 at 10:42-43.)
`
`L’Oréal USA develops and manufactures hair care, skincare, cosmetics and fragrances for
`
`consumer, luxury, and professional markets and distributes them through over 30 brands. The FAC
`
`names eighteen brands including “Biotherm; The Body Shop; Carita; Decleor; Garnier; Giorgio
`
`Armani; Helena Rubinstein; IT Cosmetics; Kiehl’s; L’Oréal Paris; La Roche-Posay; Lancôme;
`
`Maybelline; Roger & Gallet; Sanoflore; Shu Uemura; Vichy; and Yves Saint Laurent” as selling
`
`allegedly infringing products (D.I. 13, ¶ 31), yet targets only a single product, L’Oréal Paris’
`
`RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer (D.I. 13, ¶ 34).
`
`In an attempt to allege infringement, the FAC quotes the language of claims 1 and 9 of the
`
`’327 patent and claims 1 and 9 of the ’513 patent, but does not provide an element-by-element
`
`infringement analysis. (D.I. 13, ¶¶ 38-39, 48-49.) As the prosecution records of the ’327 and ’513
`
`patents show, these patents were not the first publications to describe methods of applying
`
`adenosine-containing compositions to the skin. For example, in order to overcome a prior art
`
`rejection during prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/672,348 (“the ’348 application”),
`
`which issued as the ’327 patent and to which the ’513 patent also claims priority, the patent
`
`applicants distinguished over a prior art topical composition containing an adenosine concentration
`
`of 0.033% (i.e., one third of 0.1% or 1.27 x 10-3 M).3 (See, e.g., Request for Judicial Notice
`
`
`3“[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily
`examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 331
`
`
`
`(“RJN”), filed concurrently herewith, Ex. A, Response to Final Office Action Dated October 19,
`
`2001 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.116(A), at p. 6; Ex. B, Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by James
`
`G. Dobson, Jr., Ph.D. and Michael F. Ethier, ¶ 4.)
`
`The FAC does not contain any reference to testing—or any other type of ingredient
`
`analysis—conducted on the Accused Adenosine Products. Instead, the infringement allegations in
`
`the FAC reference L’Oréal S.A. patents and a L’Oréal S.A. scientific publication. (D.I. 13, ¶¶ 21-
`
`22.) Examples from L’Oréal S.A.’s patent documents describe applying topical compositions to the
`
`skin having adenosine concentrations exceeding the upper limit of both the ’327 and ’513 patents.
`
`(See, e.g., D.I. 13-3 ¶ 0068 (Example 2) (describing a composition with an adenosine concentration
`
`of 0.1% by weight); D.I. 13-8 at 6:55-7:27 (Example 2) (describing a composition with an adenosine
`
`concentration of 3% by weight).) Likewise, the FAC includes reference to a 2006 publication
`
`authored by a L’Oréal S.A. scientist describing studies on a cream with an adenosine concentration
`
`of 0.1% by weight. (D.I. 13, ¶¶ 26-27 (citing D.I. 13-6 at 5); RJN (citing Murray Decl., Ex. C,
`
`Abella, M. L., Evaluation of Anti‐Wrinkle Efficacy of Adenosine‐Containing Products Using the
`
`FOITS Technique, International Journal of Cosmetic Science 28, 447-51, 448 (2006) (“Abella”)).)
`
`As the prosecution history for the ’348 application shows, a concentration of 0.1% adenosine is 3.8
`
`x 10-3 M (see RJN, Exs. A, at p. 6; B ¶ 4), which is greater than the maximum claimed concentration
`
`for claim 1 of the ’327 patent (10-4 M) and claim 1 of the ’513 patent (10-3). (See id.; D.I. 13, ¶¶ 12,
`
`38, 48; D.I. 13-1 at 10:18-26; D.I. 13-2 at 10:18-26.) Indeed, these documents show use of
`
`adenosine-containing compositions with adenosine concentrations that are greater than the prior art
`
`distinguished during prosecution, i.e., an adenosine concentration of 0.033% or 1.27 x 10-3 M. (See
`
`RJN, Exs. A at p. 6; B ¶ 4.)
`
`
`into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs,
`Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); accord Fed. R. Evid. 201.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 332
`
`
`
`
`Exhibits to the FAC (which are the same as those attached to the original Complaint) show
`
`that L’Oréal USA’s products are publicly available for purchase and testing. (See, e.g., D.I. 13, ¶¶
`
`25, 31, 34; D.I. 13-5 at 3, “L’Oréal’s Youth Code to Hit Mass.”) The FAC, however, provides no
`
`information regarding, for example, the adenosine concentration in any Accused Adenosine Product
`
`in relation to the infringement allegations for either the ’327 patent or the ’513 patent. (See, e.g.,
`
`D.I. 13, ¶¶ 25, 31, 34 37-39, 47-49.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege that L’Oréal USA knew about the ’327 and ’513 patents, but the FAC does
`
`not include factual allegations connecting L’Oréal USA with any third-party user of the Accused
`
`Adenosine Products, even after L’Oréal USA identified this deficiency in its Motion to Dismiss.
`
`(D.I. 13, ¶¶ 42-43, 52-53.) Likewise, Plaintiffs’ allegation of willfulness is limited to the conclusory
`
`allegation that L’Oréal USA’s “infringement of any or all of the above-named patents is willful and
`
`deliberate.” (D.I. 13, ¶ 56.)
`
`B. Correspondence Relating to the Complaint
`
`On July 7, 2017, shortly after the original Complaint was filed, counsel for L’Oréal USA
`
`sent a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel reminding them of their pleading obligations under Rule 8(a)(2).
`
`(See Murray Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A, July 7, 2017 Letter from N. Modi to M. Lowrie.) L’Oréal USA
`
`further explained that the single product identified in the Complaint (consistent with the FAC),
`
`L’Oréal Paris’ RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer, contains adenosine in a
`
`concentration that it believes falls outside the claimed range of both the ’327 and ’513 patents. (Id.
`
`at Ex. A.) Furthermore, in response to infringement allegations made by Plaintiffs before they ever
`
`filed their Complaint (see D.I. 1, ¶ 30; see also D.I. 13, ¶ 30), Plaintiffs were repeatedly asked to
`
`identify allegedly infringing products and the basis of any possible claim of infringement, but
`
`Plaintiffs never provided this information. (See Murray Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Instead, Plaintiffs’
`
`counsel invited motion practice, telling L’Oréal USA that if it “believe[s] in good faith that
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 333
`
`
`
`[Plaintiffs] have not adequately pled something, then make your motion.” (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. B, July 10,
`
`2017 Email from J. Nelson to N. Modi.) L’Oréal USA was thus forced to make its first Motion to
`
`Dismiss. (D.I. 8.) And now, by repeating the exact same allegations (except for a new prayer for
`
`relief) in their FAC, Plaintiffs have forced L’Oréal USA to make this second motion. Plaintiffs did
`
`not invite L’Oréal USA to discuss any of the issues raised in the first Motion to Dismiss before
`
`filing their FAC.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint’s factual allegations. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. at 555. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
`
`matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
`
`(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The complaint must show “more than a sheer
`
`possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
`
`plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
`
`defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Rule 8(a) “‘contemplate[s] the statement of
`
`circumstances, occurrences, and events in support of the claim presented’ and does not authorize a
`
`pleader’s ‘bare averment that he wants relief and is entitled to it.”’ Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3
`
`(citation omitted). “Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing
`
`the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must
`
`plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are
`
`not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the
`
`court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
`
`entitlement to relief.” Gibbs v. Coupe, 192 F. Supp. 3d 503, 506 (D. Del. 2016). See also N. Star
`
`Innovations, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. 16–115–LPS–CJB, 2016 WL 7107230, at *1 n.2 (D. Del.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 334
`
`
`
`Dec. 6, 2016) (“the Twombly/Iqbal standard applies to the direct infringement claims”).
`
`
`
`“To resolve a 12(b)(6) motion, a court may properly look at public records . . . .”
`
`S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir.
`
`1999). Courts may judicially notice published articles when evaluating a 12(b)(6) motion to indicate
`
`what was in the public realm, without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
`
`judgment. Benak ex rel. Alliance Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance Capital Mgmt. L.P., 435 F.3d
`
`396, 401 n.15 (3d Cir. 2006).
`
`The Supreme Court has cautioned that further leave to amend should be denied when: (1)
`
`there is “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive” by the moving party; (2) granting leave would be
`
`futile or cause “undue prejudice to the opposing party;” (3) there have been “repeated failure[s] to
`
`cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
`
`(1962); see also In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997)
`
`(“Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith,
`
`dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.”)
`
`B. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims
`
`The FAC does not sufficiently plead the elements required to establish that L’Oréal USA
`
`directly, indirectly, or willfully infringes the ’327 and ’513 patents. Plaintiffs fail to allege how any
`
`party using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Adenosine Products could plausibly infringe the
`
`’327 and/or ’513 patent(s). The FAC asserts that L’Oréal USA sells some products with adenosine
`
`(see D.I. 13, ¶¶ 31, 34) and that one or more of these Accused Adenosine Products infringe the
`
`asserted claims without explaining how such infringement may plausibly occur.4 (See D.I. 13, ¶¶
`
`38, 48.) See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009) (holding that “a complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders
`
`
`4 In particular, the FAC, like the Complaint, indiscriminately targets eighteen brands, yet identifies
`only a single product by one brand as an Accused Adenosine Product. The identification of
`seventeen other brands without identification of any product resembles a prototypical fishing
`expedition.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 335
`
`
`
`naked assertion[s] devoid of further actual enhancement.”) (internal citations and quotations marks
`
`omitted). Plaintiffs’ pleadings contain only speculation that some of L’Oréal USA’s adenosine-
`
`containing products meet the limitations of the asserted patent claims. (See, e.g., D.I. 13, ¶¶ 31, 34,
`
`38, 48.) Plaintiffs’ speculative allegations fall well short of what the law requires, and thus the FAC
`
`should be dismissed. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
`
`1. The FAC Does Not Adequately Plead Direct Infringement
`
`Claim 1 of the ’327 patent and claim 1 of the ’513 patent each contain multiple claim
`
`elements, but the “complaint contains no attempt to connect anything in the patent claims to
`
`anything about any of the accused products.” SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 351,
`
`353 (D. Del. 2017); see also Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 804 (E.D.
`
`Va. 2014) (stating that an infringement “allegation is required to put [defendant] on notice of what it
`
`has to defend and to make a plausible showing of infringement”). Under the Twombly/Iqbal
`
`standard, the SIPCO complaint was dismissed for merely alleging that defendants “sell some
`
`products, which [plaintiffs] have identified” without providing factual allegations to “plausibly
`
`allege patent infringement.” SIPCO, 230 F. Supp. 3d at 353. Likewise, Plaintiffs here
`
`indiscriminately target eighteen brands without providing plausible patent infringement allegations
`
`for any products made by those brands, including the single identified Accused Adenosine Product.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’327 patent contains multiple claim elements, each of which must be met for
`
`Plaintiffs to prove infringement:
`
`A method for enhancing the condition of unbroken skin of a mammal
`by
`
`reducing one or more of wrinkling, roughness, dryness, or
`laxity of the skin,
`
`without increasing dermal cell proliferation,
`
`the method comprising topically applying to the skin a
`composition
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 336
`
`
`
`
`comprising a concentration of adenosine in an amount
`effective to enhance the condition of the skin without
`increasing dermal cell proliferation,
`
`wherein the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal
`cells is 10-4 M to 10-7 M.
`
`(D.I. 13-1 at 10:18-26.) Claim 1 of the ’513 patent is identical to claim 1 of the ’327 patent, except
`
`for the last element, which states “wherein the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is
`
`10-3 M to 10-7 M.” (D.I. 13-2 at 10:18-26.) The FAC alleges infringement, while never plausibly
`
`stating how any Accused Adenosine Product could meet every element of the asserted claims. (See
`
`D.I. 13, ¶¶ 31, 34, 38, 48.) Consequently, L’Oréal USA and the Court are left to guess at how any
`
`possible Accused Adenosine Product may infringe the asserted method claims. Macronix, 4 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 804.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’327 patent requires (i) “a concentration of adenosine in an
`
`amount effective to enhance the condition of the skin without increasing dermal cell proliferation,
`
`wherein the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-4 M to 10-7 M.” (D.I. 13, ¶ 38;
`
`D.I. 13-1 at 10:18-26.) During prosecution of the ’327 patent, Plaintiffs surrendered claim scope to
`
`adenosine concentrations above this range. (See Section III.A supra; RJN, Exs. A at p. 6; B ¶ 4.)
`
`Thus, a showing of infringement of claim 1 of the ’327 patent requires, inter alia, showing use of a
`
`composition having an adenosine concentration within this claimed concentration range and not
`
`within the surrendered scope. Cf. Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1252
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that “clear and unmistakable surrender” of values outside a range
`
`precluded a finding of infringement). But the only documents included or cited in Plaintiffs’ FAC
`
`contain examples of adenosine concentrations that fall outside the claimed range and within the
`
`range of the surrendered scope. (See Section III.A supra (citing D.I. 13-3 ¶ 0068 (Example 2); D.I.
`
`13-8 at 6:55-7:27 (Example 2); D.I. 13-6 at 5; Murray Decl., Ex. C at 448)
`
`In addition to the concentration range element, claim 1 of the ’327 patent and claim 1 of the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 337
`
`
`
`’513 patent also have several other elements that Plaintiffs have not pled. Proving infringement of
`
`the patents-in-suit would also require, for example, that Plaintiffs show that topical application of an
`
`Accused Adenosine Product “reduc[es] one or more of wrinkling, roughness, dryness, or laxity of
`
`the skin . . . without increasing dermal cell proliferation.” (See D.I. 13-1 at 10:18-26; D.I. 13-2 at
`
`10:18-26; D.I. 13, ¶¶ 31, 34, 38, 48.) Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain how an Accused
`
`Adenosine Product would plausibly infringe these additional elements. So, other than bare
`
`allegations that L’Oréal USA is at “least making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell” products
`
`containing adenosine, the FAC contains no plausible claim of direct infringement by any party. (See
`
`D.I. 13, ¶¶ 31, 33, 34, 37-40, 42, 43, 47-50, 52, 53.)
`
`Based on the dearth of factual allegations in both the Complaint and the FAC, Plaintiffs may
`
`not have tested L’Oréal USA’s publically available products to determine infringement of each
`
`claim element. (See, e.g., D.I. 13, ¶¶ 25, 31, 34; 37-39, 47-49; D.I. 13-5 at 3, “L’Oréal’s Youth
`
`Code to Hit Mass.”) In pre-complaint correspondence—presumably recognizing their pre-filing
`
`obligation to do so—Plaintiffs alluded to product testing. (See section III.B. supra; Murray Decl.,
`
`Ex. A.) Yet, neither the Complaint nor the FAC contain any hint of such testing. (See, e.g., section
`
`III.B.; D.I. 13, ¶¶ 25, 31, 34 37-39, 47-49.)5 Thus, the FAC’s infringement pleadings are
`
`insufficient under the Twombly/Iqbal standard. See Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`
`No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) (granting a motion to dismiss
`
`where plaintiffs never “purchased one of Defendant’s products to see how it actually works”).
`
`Given the lack of necessary details in the FAC, the Plaintiffs’ direct infringement allegations
`
`should be dismissed.
`
`
`5 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ response to L’Oreal USA’s concerns regar