Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 392
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` Case No. 17-cv-868-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`OF MASSACHUSETTS
`UNIVERSITY
`MEDICAL
`SCHOOL
`and
`CARMEL
`LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`L’ORÉAL S.A. and L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`William Christopher Carmody
`Tamar E. Lusztig
`Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`
`Justin A. Nelson
`Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`Matthew B. Lowrie
`Matthew A. Ambros
`Foley & Lardner
`111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2600
`Boston, MA 02199
`
`
`
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`Farnan LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 393
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... i 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`The First Amended Complaint Contains Sufficiently Detailed
`Allegations to Support a Claim for Direct Infringement .........................................2 
`
`The First Amended Complaint Meets the Requirements for Induced
`Infringement .............................................................................................................8 
`
`The First Amended Complaint Adequately Pleads Contributory
`Infringement ...........................................................................................................11 
`
`The First Amended Complaint’s Claim for Willful Infringement is
`Plausible .................................................................................................................13 
`
`Plaintiffs Should be Permitted to Replead Their Allegations if
`Necessary ...............................................................................................................15 
`
`IV. 
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................16 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 394
`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp.,
`212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`Cipla Ltd. v. Sunovion Pharm. Inc.,
`174 F. Supp. 3d 869 (D. Del. 2016) .............................................................................. 9, 12
`
`Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 16–197–SLR–SRF, 2017 WL 374484 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2017) ......................... 10
`
`Commonwealth Research Grp. LLC v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.,
`C.A. No. 11-655-RGA, 2012 WL 2501107 (D. Del. June 28, 2012) ................................. 6
`
`Conair Corp. v. Jarden Corp.,
`2014 WL 3955172 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2014) .................................................................. 12
`
`Courtesy Prod., L.L.C. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.,
`73 F. Supp. 3d 435 (D. Del. 2014) .................................................................................... 13
`
`DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc.,
`201 F.Supp.3d 465 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................................... 4
`
`Driessen v. Sony Music Entm’t,
`2013 WL 4501063 (D. Utah Aug. 22, 2013) .................................................................... 12
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................................... 9
`
`Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.,
`365 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 12
`
`i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 11
`
`In re Bill of Lading,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................... 11
`
`Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp.,
`483 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................... 6
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2017 WL 658469 (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2017) .......................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 395
`
`Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc.,
`2016 WL 1070853 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2016) .................................................................. 11
`
`Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Mgmt. LLC,
`305 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2002).............................................................................................. 15
`
`Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Mgmt. LLC,
`77 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D.N.J. 1999) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc.,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ............................................................................... 7, 15
`
`Mayne Pharma Int'l PTY Ltd. v. Merck & Co.,
`C.A. No. 15-438-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 7833206 (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2015) .......................... 14
`
`McZeal v. Spring Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
`2015 WL 4036951 (D. Del. July 1, 2015) ........................................................................ 11
`
`Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Ethical Coffee Co. SA,
`C.A. No. 16-194-GMS, 2017 WL 3021066 (D. Del. July 14, 2017)................................ 15
`
`Nexeon Ltd. v. Eaglepicher Techs., LLC,
`C.A. No. 15-955-RGA-MPT, 2016 WL 4045474 (D. Del. July 26, 2016) ........................ 9
`
`Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`
`C.A. No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ..................................... 6
`
`ReefEdge Networks, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`29 F. Supp. 3d 455 (D. Del. 2014) .................................................................................... 10
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 351 (D. Del. 2017) .............................................................................. 7, 15
`
`Skinner v. Switzer,
`131 S.Ct. 1289 (2011) ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`C.A. No. 10-425-LPS, 2012 WL 1134318 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2012) .......................... 14, 15
`
`Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
`534 U.S. 506 (2002) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 396
`
`Telecomm Innovations, LLC v. Ricoh Co., Ltd.,
`966 F. Supp. 2d 390 (D. Del. 2013) .................................................................................... 9
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc.,
`C.A. No. 6:15-CV-1168-JRG, 2016 WL 7042236 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2016)................. 10
`
`United States Gypsum Company v. New NGC, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2538569 (D. Del. June 12, 2017) ........................................................................ 3
`
`Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`852 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Del. 2012) ............................................................................ 13, 14
`
`Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-679-RGA-MPT, 2017 WL 1296026 (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2017) ........................ 10
`
`Rules 
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 397
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The first amended complaint in this action (D.I. 13) (“FAC”) contains well more than
`
`sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim against L’Oréal USA., Inc. (“L’Oréal
`
`USA”) for its infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,423,327 (the “’327 patent”) and 6,645,513 (the
`
`“’513 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”), which are owned by the University of
`
`Massachusetts Medical School (“UMass”) and licensed exclusively to Carmel Laboratories, LLC
`
`(“Carmel Labs”) (together, “Plaintiffs”).
`
`The patents-in-suit disclose methods to enhance skin condition, comprised of applying a
`
`composition containing adenosine to the skin, such that the concentration of adenosine that
`
`ultimately penetrates to the dermal cell layer falls within claimed ranges. L’Oréal USA and its
`
`parent, L’Oréal S.A. (“L’Oréal”), also a named Defendant,1 create, design, manufacture, use, and
`
`sell cosmetic products containing adenosine. These products, when used both by Defendants and
`
`their customers, practice the patented methods disclosed in the patents-in-suit.
`
`L’Oréal USA’s motion to dismiss the FAC conflates the requirements for infringement
`
`contentions with adequate pleading. It attacks the FAC as “conclusory” while either ignoring or
`
`distorting the allegations in the FAC that provide the factual backbone it demands. L’Oréal USA
`
`also misapprehends the patents themselves. Premised on a quick-read (and erroneous)
`
`interpretation of the patents-in-suit, L’Oréal USA argues that this Court should dismiss the FAC
`
`because its products do not practice the patent.
`
`As explained below, that argument is contrary to fact and to law—particularly where the
`
`Court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs on a motion to dismiss.
`
`This Court should deny L’Oréal USA’s motion.
`
`
`1 L’Oréal S.A. has been served, requested to postpone answering until October 16, 2017, see D.I.
`14, and does not join L’Oréal USA’s motion.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 398
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“The central issue [on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion] is whether, in the light most favorable to
`
`the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief.” McZeal v. Spring Nextel Corp., 501
`
`F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). Courts must examine whether the
`
`“complaint is sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold”—and not whether the plaintiff will
`
`ultimately prevail. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011). A complaint should not be
`
`dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that “no relief could be
`
`granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Swierkiewicz
`
`v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
`
`556 (2007) (a complaint is adequate where it has “enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation
`
`that discovery will reveal evidence” supporting plaintiff’s claim for relief).
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`a. The First Amended Complaint Contains Sufficiently Detailed Allegations
`to Support a Claim for Direct Infringement
`
`L’Oréal USA’s motion faults the FAC for failing to “provide an element-by-element
`
`infringement analysis,” D.I. 16 (“Br.”) at 4, but cites no authority supporting the proposition that
`
`such analysis is necessary at the pleading stage. The motion conflates the requirements for
`
`infringement contentions with adequate pleading. Indeed, under L’Oréal USA’s theory, the
`
`deadline for serving infringement contentions in the Local Rules would be moot, since L’Oréal
`
`USA would require a version of infringement contentions at the time of filing. The complaint
`
`provides well more than a sufficient basis to survive a motion to dismiss. As Judge Robinson
`
`recently held, “Absent specific guidance from the Federal Circuit directing the court to front-load
`
`the litigation process by requiring a detailed complaint in every instance, the court declines to do
`
`so.” DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc., 201 F.Supp.3d 465, 469 (Robinson, J.) (D. Del. 2016).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 399
`
`“Infringement contentions . . . serve the purpose of providing notice to the Defendants of
`
`infringement theories beyond the mere language of the patent claim[,]” and set forth how the
`
`accused products meet the claim limitations. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`2017 WL 658469, at *2 (Stark, J.) (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2017) (emphasis added) (internal citations
`
`and quotations omitted). Conversely, a complaint must only contain a “short and plain statement
`
`of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), that plausibly
`
`pleads “facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice to what he must defend.” McZeal,
`
`501 F.3d at 1357. “The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the
`
`claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” United States Gypsum Company v.
`
`New NGC, Inc., 2017 WL 2538569, at *1 (Thynge, M.J.) (D. Del. June 12, 2017) (internal
`
`citations omitted).
`
`Here, the FAC more than plausibly pleads that use of one or more of L’Oréal USA’s
`
`products meets the elements of Plaintiffs’ patented method. The FAC specifically names one
`
`such product— L’Oréal Paris’ RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer—and pleads
`
`that it meets each element of claims 1 and 9 of each of the patents-in-suit. See FAC ¶ 34 (“The
`
`Accused Adenosine Products include, for example, L’Oréal Paris’ RevitaLift Triple Power
`
`Deep-Acting Moisturizer.”); ¶ 38 (use of the Accused Adenosine Products meets the limitations
`
`of claim 1 of the ’327 patent, as it “involves 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, wherein the
`
`adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10−4 M to 10−7”); ¶ 39 (use of the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 400
`
`Accused Adenosine Products meets the limitations of claim 9 of the ’327 patent, as it “includes a
`
`composition that further comprises a transdermal agent”); ¶ 48 (use of the Accused Adenosine
`
`Products meets the limitations of claim 1 of the ’513 patent, as it “involves 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, wherein the adenosine concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10−3 M to
`
`10−7”); ¶ 49 (use of the Accused Adenosine Products meets the limitations of claim 9 of the
`
`’513 patent, as it “includes a composition that further comprises a transdermal agent”). The FAC
`
`provides further details about why those allegations are plausible:
`
` L’Oréal USA’s own website states that RevitaLift Triple Power
`Deep-Acting Moisturizer contains adenosine. See Ex. 12;
`
` RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer is a topical
`composition meant to be applied to the skin. See id. ¶ 34, Ex.
`11 (“Every morning and evening, smooth over the face, neck
`and jawline until thoroughly absorbed.”); and
`
` RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer enhances the
`condition of the skin. See id. ¶ 34, Ex. 12 (“This powerful,
`luxurious moisturizer goes beyond a simple anti-aging cream to
`address 3 dimensions that visibly age skin: 1. Repair Wrinkles.
`2. Refirm Contours. 3. Redensify Skin. . . . In 1 week, skin’s
`texture appears smoother. In 4 weeks, elasticity is increased
`and skin looks younger, firmer and lifted.”).
`
`The FAC also notes that this analysis applies to L’Oréal USA’s other products containing
`
`
`
`
`
`adenosine, not only RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer. See id. ¶ 34 (“Defendants
`
`direct their customers to apply the Accused Adenosine Products topically, intending the Accused
`
`Adenosine Products to enhance their customers’ skin condition using the methods claimed in the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 401
`
`patents-in-suit.”). Indeed, L’Oréal USA has made numerous public statements touting the skin-
`
`enhancing adenosine in its products, including in magazines, see id. ¶ 25 (“Defendants publicly
`
`announced their new Youth Code line of anti-aging skin care, promoting its use of ‘adenosine, a
`
`molecule that is found in skin cells that acts at the dermis level to produce collagen.’”); on their
`
`websites, see id. ¶ 26 (“Defendants tout the benefits of adenosine on their brand’s website as
`
`well, stating . . . ‘When applied topically, adenosine-containing products showed significant
`
`improvements in the visible signs of aging as well as improving skin smoothness.’”); and in their
`
`own patents and applications, see id. ¶¶ 20 (“[I]n U.S. Patent Application No. 10/701,495
`
`(‘Method for Softening Lines and Relaxing the Skin with Adenosine and Adenosine Analogues’)
`
`. . . L’Oréal stated that ‘it has been suggested, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,423,327 [i.e., the ’327 patent]
`
`and US-2003/044439 [i.e., the application that issued the ’513 patent], that adenosine or an
`
`analogue of adenosine can be used in a composition that is topically applied to the skin to
`
`improve skin condition.’”). These public statements underscore the plausibility of the FAC’s
`
`allegations.
`
`Plaintiffs made detailed factual allegations that L’Oréal USA infringes by meeting every
`
`element of at least two claims of the patents-in-suit. L’Oréal USA nonetheless alludes to some
`
`alleged Rule 11 violation premised on Plaintiffs’ having not provided testing results at the
`
`pleading stage. But L’Oréal USA cites no authority supporting the absurd proposition that a
`
`complaint must reveal privileged work product to demonstrate a plaintiff’s Rule 11 obligation is
`
`satisfied. Moreover, there is no “blanket rule that a patentee must obtain and thoroughly
`
`deconstruct a sample of defendant’s product to avoid violating Rule 11.” Intamin Ltd. v.
`
`Magnetar Techs., Corp., 483 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2007). L’Oréal USA cites Raindance
`
`Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., but the dismissal in Raindance was not premised on the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 402
`
`patentee’s alleged failure to reverse engineer the accused products. C.A. No. 15-152-RGA, 2016
`
`WL 927143, at *2 (Andrews, J.) (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016); cf. Commonwealth Research Grp. LLC
`
`v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 11-655-RGA, 2012 WL 2501107, at *3 (Andrews, J.)
`
`(D. Del. June 28, 2012) (“I do not think that doing reverse engineering is required, even if, as
`
`Cypress asserts, its product could have easily been purchased for $100.”).
`
`Plaintiffs of course have satisfied their Rule 11 obligation that they plead infringement in
`
`good faith. Requiring any more at this stage would subvert this Court’s Local Rules and standard
`
`patent practice by effectively requiring a patent plaintiff to supply work product that supports
`
`their detailed factual allegations prior to the Court-ordered deadlines that provide a system for
`
`the mutual exchange of information.
`
`L’Oréal USA also attempts to defend itself by arguing that the written materials cited in
`
`the FAC (for example, Defendants’ website article and issued patents) disclose the application of
`
`a concentration of adenosine outside of the adenosine range claimed in the patents-in-suit. That
`
`argument fails for at least two independent reasons.
`
`First, as a threshold matter, L’Oréal USA’s argument violates the mandate that complaint
`
`allegations must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. This
`
`alone dooms L’Oréal USA’s motion.
`
`Second, L’Oréal USA’s argument betrays a fundamental misconstrual of the claimed
`
`methods. The patents-in-suit disclose methods of applying adenosine topically, where the
`
`concentration of adenosine “applied to the dermal cells” is 10−4 M to 10−7 (for the ’327 patent),
`
`or 10−3 M to 10−7 (for the ’513 patent). Mammalian skin (including human skin) is comprised of
`
`two primary layers: the epidermis, the outermost layer of skin; and the dermis, the layer of skin
`
`beneath the epidermis. The patents-in-suit disclose methods by which adenosine is applied to the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 403
`
`lower, dermal layer of skin by penetrating the epidermis to ultimately reach the dermal cells in
`
`the claimed ranges.2 Accordingly, L’Oréal USA’s argument, which is based on the concentration
`
`of adenosine in its products, but not the concentration that is ultimately applied to the dermal
`
`cells, is meaningless. For that reason, Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241,
`
`1252 (Fed. Cir. 2000), is inapposite.
`
`The other cases L’Oréal USA cites in support of its argument that the FAC does not
`
`adequately plead direct infringement are also not on point. The complaints in both SIPCO, LLC
`
`v. Streetline, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 351, 353 (D. Del. 2017), and Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 804 (E.D. Va. 2014) fall far short of the FAC, pleading, with
`
`no supporting facts, that the relevant patent claims were infringed only on information and belief.
`
`See Farnan Decl. Exs. A, B, complaints in SIPCO and Macronix, respectively. But here, for the
`
`reasons explained above, the FAC provides sufficiently detailed and plausible allegations that
`
`Defendants infringe the patents-in-suit.
`
`Plaintiffs will disclose an element-by-element infringement analysis, as well as
`
`specifically identifying each accused product, according to the District of Delaware’s Default
`
`Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, see id. ¶ 4
`
`(accused products shall be specifically identified within 30 days of the Rule 16 conference;
`
`initial claim charts shall be produced within 30 days of a defendant’s 4(b) disclosures), and
`
`whatever scheduling order the Court will enter.
`
`The FAC is well more than plausible on its face, and, therefore, L’Oréal USA’s motion
`
`should be denied.
`
`
`2 To the extent L’Oréal USA disputes this straightforward point, that is an issue for claim
`construction.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 404
`
`b. The First Amended Complaint Meets the Requirements for Induced
`Infringement
`
`L’Oréal USA lodges two criticisms specific to the FAC’s induced infringement
`
`
`
`allegations: First, that the FAC does not identify a “specific third party” who is the direct
`
`infringer; and second, that the FAC does not sufficiently allege L’Oréal USA’s knowledge or
`
`intent. Br. at 12. But the FAC adequately and plausibly pleads both of these issues.
`
`First, the FAC specifically pleads that L’Oréal USA’s “customers,” who are end-users of
`
`the Accused Adenosine Products, are direct infringers. See FAC ¶¶ 40-42 (“Where acts
`
`constituting direct infringement of the ’327 patent are not performed by Defendants, such acts
`
`constituting direct infringement of the ’327 patent are performed by Defendants’ customers or
`
`end-users who act at the direction and/or control of Defendants, with Defendants’ knowledge.”),
`
`50-52 (same, for the ’513 patent). The FAC also plausibly alleges that L’Oréal USA “direct[s its]
`
`customers to apply the Accused Adenosine Products topically, intending the Accused Adenosine
`
`Products to enhance [its] customers’ skin condition using the methods claimed in the patents-in-
`
`suit,” citing specific product literature released by L’Oréal USA instructing its customers to
`
`“Every morning and evening, smooth [the Accused Adenosine Products] over the face, neck and
`
`jawline until thoroughly absorbed.” See id. ¶ 34.
`
`Those allegations are sufficient to identify a direct infringer under applicable law:
`
`With respect to properly alleging that at least one direct infringer
`exists, plaintiff is not required to specifically identify the
`customers who are induced to infringe, as this is a proper question
`for discovery. Thus, plaintiff need only plead facts sufficient to
`allow an inference that at least one direct infringer exists. Since
`plaintiff has pled that defendants’ customers and others have
`infringed and are continuing to infringe the [ ] patent, the
`requirement for pleading facts to allow an inference that at least
`one direct infringer exists has been met.
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 405
`
`Telecomm Innovations, LLC v. Ricoh Co., Ltd., 966 F. Supp. 2d 390, 394 (Robinson, J.) (D. Del.
`
`2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). See also Cipla Ltd. v. Sunovion Pharm. Inc.,
`
`174 F. Supp. 3d 869, 872 (Stark, J.) (D. Del. 2016) (“[T]he complaint alleges facts that give rise
`
`to a reasonable inference that Defendant’s actions induced third parties to infringe—it alleges
`
`that Defendant sells and offers to sell Xopenex HFA to consumers, who it can be reasonably
`
`inferred will then use Xopenex HFA.”).
`
`Second, the FAC plausibly pleads that L’Oréal USA has actual knowledge of the patents-
`
`in-suit, including discussing the patents-in-suit in its own patent application, which was later
`
`rejected as obvious over the ’327 patent, see FAC ¶¶ 20-22 (“it has been suggested, in U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 6,423,327 [i.e., the ’327 patent] and US-2003/044439 [i.e., the application that issued the
`
`’513 patent], that adenosine or an analogue of adenosine can be used in a composition that is
`
`topically applied to the skin to improve skin condition.”); direct contact with the patent inventor,
`
`see id. ¶ 23 (“In fall of 2003, an agent of both Defendants contacted Dr. Dobson to discuss the
`
`patents-in-suit. Defendants, however, did not obtain a license to the patents-in-suit.”); and
`
`written notice from Plaintiffs that Defendants’ products infringe the patents-in-suit, see id. ¶ 30
`
`(“In March 2015, Brother Dennis Wyrzykowski, President of Teresian Carmelites and Carmel
`
`Labs, sent a letter to Jean-Paul Agon, CEO of L’Oréal, stating his belief that Defendants’
`
`products infringe the patents-in-suit, and affirming that Carmel Labs is the exclusive licensee of
`
`the patents-in-suit.”).
`
`Even without the aforementioned direct evidence of actual knowledge, knowledge of
`
`inducement may also be pled circumstantially, DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293,
`
`1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006), through facts (like those alleged here) “such as advertising an infringing
`
`use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use,” Nexeon Ltd. v. Eaglepicher Techs., LLC,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 406
`
`C.A. No. 15-955-RGA-MPT, 2016 WL 4045474, at *6 (Thynge, M.J.) (D. Del. July 26, 2016),
`
`report and recommendation adopted, C.A. No. 15-955-RGA, 2016 WL 6093471 (D. Del. Oct.
`
`18, 2016). See also Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(“Evidence of active steps taken to induce infringement, such as advertising an infringing use,
`
`can support a finding of an intention for the product to be used in an infringing manner.”);
`
`ReefEdge Networks, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 455, 460 (Stark, J.) (D. Del.
`
`2014) (“[A]llegations of . . . marketing activities and instructions to customers to use the accused
`
`products in an infringing manner, even after [defendant] had actual notice of the alleged
`
`infringement by specific accused products . . . pleads specific intent to induce infringement with
`
`sufficient particularity.”); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc., No. 6:15-CV-1168-JRG, 2016 WL
`
`7042236, at *4 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2016) (complaint sufficient where it includes “publicly
`
`available documents that allegedly instruct [ ] customers to use the accused products in a way
`
`that infringes the asserted patents”).3
`
`At this early pleading stage, Plaintiffs’ allegations—including their allegations that
`
`L’Oréal USA knew about the patents-in-suit, cited the patents-in-suit in its own patent
`
`applications, reached out to the inventor, and received written notification from Plaintiffs that its
`
`products infringe—should be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.
`
`
`3 Even if the FAC’s allegations supporting L’Oréal USA’s pre-suit knowledge are insufficient—
`which they plainly are not—“knowledge gleaned from the complaint satisfies requirement of
`proof of knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” Zimmer Surgical, Inc.
`v. Stryker Corp., C.A. No. 16-679-RGA-MPT, 2017 WL 1296026, at *6 (Thynge, M.J.) (D. Del.
`Apr. 6, 2017); see also Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 16–
`197–SLR–SRF, 2017 WL 374484, at *9 (Fallon, M.J.) (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2017) (“a more recent
`line of cases from this district holds that the filing of a complaint is sufficient to provide
`knowledge of the patents-in-suit forpurposes of stating a claim for indirect infringement
`occurring after the filing date.”). The same is true with respect to the knowledge required for
`contributory infringement. See Walker Digital, 852 F. Supp. 2d at 565.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 09/05/17 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 407
`
`c. The First Amended Complaint Adequately Pleads Contributory
`Infringement
`
`In order to state a claim for contributory infringement, Plaintiffs must adequately allege
`
`
`
`that Defendants sold or offered to sell (1) “a material or apparatus for use” in practicing the
`
`patent; (2) that material or apparatus “must be a material part of the invention, have no
`
`substantial noninfringing uses”; and (3) have knowledge that the material or apparatus is
`
`“especially made or especially adapted” for use in a way that infringes. i4i Ltd. P'ship v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 850-51 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff'd, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). The FAC
`
`adequately alleges each of these requirements.
`
`First, the FAC alleges that L’Oreal USA sells the Accused Adenosine Products,
`
`including, for example, L’Oréal Paris’ RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer, which
`
`is a material or apparatus for use in practicing the patented methodology. FAC ¶ 34 (“Defendants
`
`direct their customers to apply the Accused Adenosine Products topically, intending the Accused
`
`Adenosine Products to enhance their customers’ skin condition