Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 142
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`MEDICAL SCHOOL and CARMEL
`LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`L’ORÉAL S.A. and L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`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 4, 2017
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 143
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................... 1 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 1 
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 2 
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Allegations In Support of Plaintiffs’ Claims .................................................. 2 
`
`Correspondence Relating to the Complaint ........................................................... 5 
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6 
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................................... 6 
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims. ....................................................... 7 
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Complaint Does Not Adequately Plead Direct Infringement ............. 8 
`
`The Complaint Does Not Adequately Plead Induced Infringement ........ 11 
`
`The Complaint Does Not Adequately Plead Contributory Infringement 12 
`
`The Complaint Does Not Adequately Plead Willful Infringement ......... 13 
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 14 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 144
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Benak ex rel. Alliance Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance Capital Mgmt. L.P.,
`435 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2006).......................................................................................................7
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .....................................................................................................1, 6, 7, 12
`
`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) ...........................................................................................................1, 6, 8
`
`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, 12, 13
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`_ U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ..........................................................................................2, 13
`
`Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Mgmt. LLC,
`305 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2002).......................................................................................................8
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................12
`
`M2M Solutions LLC v. Telit Commc’ns PLC,
`No. 14–1103–RGA, 2015 WL 4640400 (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2015) .......................................11, 12
`
`Macronix Intern. Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc.,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ........................................................................................8, 9
`
`Mayne Pharma Int’l PTY Ltd. v. Merck & Co.,
`No. 15-438-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 7833206 (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2015) ..........................................13
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`No. 16–115–LPS–CJB, 2016 WL 7107230 (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2016) ..........................................7
`
`Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ..................................................11
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 145
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd.,
`181 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 1999).......................................................................................................7
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 351 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................8
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB,
`No. 15-871-LPS, 2016 WL 3748772 (D. Del. July 12, 2016) .................................................12
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(b) ....................................................................................................................................12
`§ 271(c) ....................................................................................................................................12
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`8..................................................................................................................................................1
`8(a) .............................................................................................................................................6
`8(a)(2). ...................................................................................................................................1, 5
`8(a)(2) ........................................................................................................................................1
`12(b)(6) ..........................................................................................................................1, 2, 4, 6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 146
`
`
`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 July 19, 2017, the Parties filed a stipulation, so ordered
`
`on July 21, 2017, that the deadline for L’Oréal USA to move, answer, or otherwise respond to
`
`the Complaint is extended through and including August 4, 2017. (D.I. 4.)
`
`L’Oréal USA now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”)
`
`8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6).1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Each claim asserted in the Complaint is inadequately pled and should be dismissed
`
`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 . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiffs fall far
`
`short of meeting this burden for any of the asserted claims.
`
`Plaintiffs have not adequately pled direct infringement for either of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Instead, the Complaint recites conclusory allegations that by “making, using, selling, and/or
`
`offering to sell” mostly unspecified products (the “Accused Adenosine Products”), L’Oréal USA
`
`1 L’Oréal S.A. separately plans to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or by
`October 16, 2017, the stipulated deadline for L’Oréal S.A.’s response to the Complaint. (D.I. 4.)
`1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 147
`
`
`directly infringes the asserted patent claims. (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 37, 47.) But the Complaint 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 are also insufficient. For inducement (see
`
`D.I. 1, ¶¶ 42, 52), the Complaint 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 fail 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. 1, ¶¶ 43, 53.) Id. at 763.
`
`Likewise, Plaintiffs’ willful infringement allegations are insufficient. (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 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., _ U.S. _, 136 S.
`
`Ct. 1923, 1926, 1932-1933 (2016).
`
`Because of the many pleading deficiencies plaguing Plaintiffs’ claims for relief, L’Oréal
`
`USA respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. The Allegations in Support of Plaintiffs’ Claims
`
`Plaintiffs 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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 148
`
`
`Count I (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 35-44) and claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,645,513 (the “’513 patent”) in
`
`Count II. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 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, wherein
`the adenosine
`concentration applied to the dermal cells is 10-4 M to 10-7 M.”
`
`(D.I. 1, ¶ 12; D.I. 1-1 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. 1, ¶ 12;
`
`D.I. 1-2 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. 1, ¶
`
`13; D.I. 1-1 at 10:43-44; D.I. 1-2 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 Complaint 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. 1, ¶ 31), yet targets only a single product,
`
`L’Oréal Paris’ RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer (D.I. 1, ¶ 34).
`
`In an attempt to allege infringement, the Complaint 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. 1, ¶¶ 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 149
`
`
`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).2 (See, e.g., Request for
`
`Judicial Notice (“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, at ¶ 4.)
`
`The Complaint 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 Complaint reference L’Oréal S.A. patents and a L’Oréal S.A. scientific publication. (D.I.
`
`1, ¶¶ 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. 1-3 at ¶ 0068 (Example 2) (describing a composition with
`
`an adenosine concentration of 0.1% by weight); D.I. 1-8 at 6:55-7:27 (Example 2) (describing a
`
`composition with an adenosine concentration of 3% by weight).) Likewise, the Complaint
`
`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. 1, ¶¶ 26-27 (citing D.I. 1-6
`
`at 5); RJN (citing Declaration of Katherine Murray (“Murray Decl.”), filed concurrently
`
`herewith, 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
`
`
`2“[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
`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.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 150
`
`
`of 0.1% adenosine is 3.8 x 10-3 M (see RJN, Exs. A, at p. 6; B at ¶ 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. 1, ¶ 12, 38, 48; D.I. 1-1 at 10:18-26; D.I. 1-2 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 at ¶ 4.)
`
`Exhibits to the Complaint show that L’Oréal USA’s products are publicly available for
`
`purchase and testing. (See, e.g., D.I. 1, ¶¶ 25, 31, 34; D.I. 1-5 at 3, “L’Oréal’s Youth Code to Hit
`
`Mass.”) The Complaint, 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. 1, ¶¶ 25, 31, 34 37-39,
`
`47-49.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege that L’Oréal USA knew about the ’327 and ’513 patents, but the
`
`Complaint does not include factual allegations connecting L’Oréal USA with any third-party
`
`user of the Accused Adenosine Products. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 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. 1, ¶ 56.)
`
`B. Correspondence Relating to the Complaint
`
`On July 7, 2017, 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. at ¶ 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, 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 151
`
`
`’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), 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. at ¶ 3, Ex. A.)
`
`Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel invited motion practice, telling L’Oréal USA that if it “believe[s] in
`
`good faith that [Plaintiffs] have not adequately pled something, then make your motion.” (Id. at
`
`¶ 4, Ex. B, July 10, 2017 Email from J. Nelson to N. Modi.) L’Oréal USA is thus forced to make
`
`this motion.
`
`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 556 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)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 152
`
`
`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. 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).
`
`B. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims
`
`The Complaint 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 Complaint asserts that L’Oréal USA sells some
`
`products with adenosine (see D.I. 1, ¶¶ 31, 34) and that one or more of these Accused Adenosine
`
`Products infringe the asserted claims without explaining how such infringement may plausibly
`
`occur.3 (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 38, 48.) See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009) (holding that “a complaint
`
`[does not] suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further actual enhancement.”)
`
`(internal citations and quotations marks omitted). Plaintiffs’ pleadings contain only speculation
`
`
`3 In particular, the Complaint indiscriminately targets eighteen brands, yet identifies only a single
`product by one brand as an Accused Adenosine Product. Thus, the identification of seventeen
`other brands without identification of any product resembles a prototypical fishing expedition.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 153
`
`
`that some of L’Oréal USA’s adenosine-containing products meet the limitations of the asserted
`
`patent claims. (See, e.g., D.I. 1, ¶¶ 31, 34, 38, 48.) Plaintiffs’ speculative allegations fall well
`
`short of what the law requires, and thus the Complaint should be dismissed. 4 See Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. at 555.
`
`1. The Complaint Does Not Adequately Plead Direct Infringement
`
`Claim 1 of the ’327 patent and claim 1 of the ’513 patents 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 Intern. 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:
`
`4 “A District Court has discretion to deny a plaintiff leave to amend where the plaintiff was put
`on notice as to the deficiencies in his complaint, but chose not to resolve them.” Krantz v.
`Prudential Investments Fund Mgmt. LLC, 305 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 2002). Before and after
`filing the Complaint, Plaintiffs were notified of the deficiencies plaguing the Complaint and
`sought bases for the claims of infringement. Plaintiffs have not responded to these requests nor
`have they withdrawn their Complaint. Because Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to provide
`L’Oréal USA and the Court with the basis for their claims and remain unable to do so, the
`Complaint warrants dismissal with prejudice.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 154
`
`
`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 M.
`
`(D.I. 1-1 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. 1-2 at 10:18-26.) The Complaint alleges infringement,
`
`while never plausibly stating how any Accused Adenosine Product could meet every element of
`
`the asserted claims. (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 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. 1, ¶ 38; D.I. 1-1 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 at ¶ 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.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 155
`
`
`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 complaint 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. 1-3 at ¶ 0068 (Example 2); D.I. 1-8 at 6:55-7:27 (Example
`
`2); D.I. 1-6 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 ’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. 1-1 at 10:18-26; D.I. 1-2 at 10:18-26; D.I. 1, ¶¶ 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 Complaint contains no plausible claim
`
`of direct infringement by any party. (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 31, 33, 34, 37-40, 42, 43, 47-50, 52, 53.)
`
`Based on the dearth of factual allegations in the Complaint, it does not appear that
`
`Plaintiffs tested L’Oréal USA’s publically available products to determine infringement of each
`
`claim element. (See, e.g., D.I. 1, ¶¶ 25, 31, 34; 37-39, 47-49; D.I. 1-5 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.) The Complaint, however, contains no hint of such testing. (See, e.g., id.; D.I. 1,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 156
`
`
`¶¶ 25, 31, 34 37-39, 47-49.)5 Thus, the Complaint’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 Complaint, the Plaintiffs’ direct infringement
`
`allegations should be dismissed.
`
`2. The Complaint Does Not Adequately Plead Induced Infringement
`
`Given Plaintiffs’ failure to allege sufficient facts to plausibly plead direct infringement
`
`under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, Plaintiffs’ claim for induced infringement must also be
`
`dismissed. M2M Solutions LLC v. Telit Commc’ns PLC, No. 14–1103–RGA, 2015 WL
`
`4640400, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2015) (“In order to plead induced infringement, the patentee
`
`‘must show direct infringement, and that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement
`
`and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.’”) (quoting Toshiba Corp. v.
`
`Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Even if Plaintiffs had adequately pled direct infringement, the induced infringement
`
`claims still fail. The Complaint only includes the conclusory allegation that L’Oréal USA
`
`induced infringement “by making, selling and/or offering to sell the Accused Adenosine
`
`Products to their customers with the knowledge and intent that use of the Accused Adenosine
`
`Products would constitute direct infringement of the [patents-in-suit] by Defendants’ customers.”
`
`(See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 42, 52.) This is inadequate under the pleading rules. See M2M Solutions, 2015
`
`WL 4640400, at *4 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 687) (An “assertion based on no factual allegations
`
`
`5 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ response to L’Oreal USA’s concerns regarding the inadequacies of the
`infringement allegations against the single product identified in the Complaint leaves open the
`question of whether pre-filing testing was ever performed. (See section III.B., supra.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 8 Filed 08/04/17 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 157
`
`
`cannot pass muster under the plausibility standards.”) The Complaint does not demonstrate that
`
`L’Oréal USA had knowledge of specific third-party acts or the intent to induce third-party
`
`infringement of the patents-in-suit as required by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). See Global–Tech, 563 U.S.
`
`at 766. Indeed, the Complaint does not even identify a specific third party or how that third party
`
`could perform a method that would infringe claim 1 of the ’327 or ’513 patents. Moreover, the
`
`Complaint does not plausibly allege that L’Oréal USA acted with “knowledge that the induced
`
`acts constitute patent infringement,” as required under § 271(b). Global–Tech, 563 U.S. at 766;
`
`see also M2M Solutions, 2015 WL 46404