Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 518
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 17-1693-JFB-SRF
`
`v.
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC’S RESPONSE TO
`SONY’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
`
`Dated: March 6, 2018
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`Reza Mirzaie
`Brian D. Ledahl
`C. Jay Chung
`Philip X. Wang
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`pwang@raklaw.com
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
`Sara E. Bussiere (No. 5725)
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Phone: (302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 519
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD..........................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Realtime’s Detailed Allegations Easily Satisfy the Iqbal/Twombly Notice
`Pleading Standard ....................................................................................................3
`
`Realtime Is Not Required to Identify All Asserted Claims or Provide an
`Exhaustive List of All Accused Products in the Complaint ....................................6
`
`Sony’s Arguments Regarding the “Encoding” and “Decoding” Are
`Meritless and Improper on a Rule 12 Motion..........................................................8
`
`Realtime Has Sufficiently Plead Ownership of All Asserted Patents......................9
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................10
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 520
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007)............................................................................................................ 1
`
`DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc.,
`201 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D. Del. 2016)................................................................................ 4, 6
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Intergraph Corp.,
`No. C 03-2517 MJJ, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26092 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2003)................... 7
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 3
`
`IP Commc’n Sols., LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc.,
`No. CV 16-134-GMS, 2017 WL 1312942 (D. Del. Apr. 5, 2017)............................. 4, 6, 8
`
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................... 3
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`No. 2017-1036 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2018)............................................................................ 3
`
`Philips v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.,
`No. CV 15-1125-GMS, 2016 WL 6246763 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2016) ......................... 6, 7, 8
`
`Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hosp. Franchise Sys., Inc.,
`203 F.3d 790 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................... 2, 4, 10
`
`Prowire LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. CV 17-223, 2017 WL 3444689 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017) .......................................... 1, 4
`
`Retzlaff v. Horace Mann Ins.,
`738 F. Supp. 2d 564 (D. Del. 2010).................................................................................... 2
`
`Shahin v. Delaware Dep’t of Fin.,
`No. CIV.A. 10-188-GMS, 2011 WL 2470582 (D. Del. June 21, 2011)....................... 2, 10
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`539 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ............................................................................ 7
`
`United States Gypsum Co. v. New NGC, Inc.,
`No. CV 17-130-VAC-MPT, 2017 WL 2538569 (D. Del. June 12, 2017).......................... 4
`
`Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. CV 16-679-RGA-MPT, 2017 WL 1296026 (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2017)........................ 6, 7
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 521
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12............................................................................................................................ 2
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 522
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Sony’s motion for a more definite statement essentially demands that Realtime provide
`
`detailed infringement contentions in its complaint. For example, Sony argues that the complaint
`
`is deficient because it does not identify all asserted claims and accused products, and because it
`
`does not allege how each accused product meets each element of each asserted claim. This is not
`
`the law. Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but only requires facts sufficient to
`
`place the alleged infringer on notice of what it must defend. Realtime’s complaint—which
`
`identifies exemplary accused instrumentalities by name and model number, explains how these
`
`accused instrumentalities meet the elements of the identified representative asserted claims, and
`
`even provides direct quotes and citations to evidence from Sony’s own website—far exceeds the
`
`notice pleading standard. None of the cases cited by Sony support its position. Indeed, courts in
`
`this District have consistently “declined” to “front-load the litigation process by requiring a
`
`detailed complaint in every instance.” Prowire LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. CV 17-223, 2017 WL
`
`3444689, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017).
`
`The allegations of the complaint are sufficiently detailed to put Sony on notice of what it
`
`must defend. No more is required. Sony’s motion for a more definite statement should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
`
`claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d
`
`1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007)1 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). To
`
`1 In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal, courts in this and other
`districts properly rely on pre-December 1, 2015 (when Form 18 was abrogated) Federal Circuit
`precedent regarding the pleading standards for patent infringement. See Prowire LLC v. Apple,
`Inc., No. CV 17-223, 2017 WL 3444689, at *3 n.7 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017) (collecting recent
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 523
`
`state a claim for patent infringement, “a patentee need only plead facts sufficient to place the
`
`alleged infringer on notice as to what he must defend.” Id. at 1357. “Thus, a plaintiff in a patent
`
`infringement suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted
`
`patent.” McZeal, 501 F.3d at 1357; see also Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hosp. Franchise Sys., Inc., 203
`
`F.3d 790, 794 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The Rule 12(b)(6) pleading requirements for a complaint of
`
`infringement cannot be extended to require a plaintiff to specifically include each element of the
`
`claims of the asserted patent.”). “To impose such requirements would contravene the notice
`
`pleading standard, and would add needless steps to the already complex process of patent
`
`litigation.” Phonometrics, 203 F.3d at 794. “Instead, a patentee need only plead facts sufficient
`
`to place the alleged infringer on notice,” which “ensures that an accused infringer has sufficient
`
`knowledge of the facts alleged to enable it to answer the complaint and defend itself.” Id.
`
`Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits defendant to move for a more
`
`definite statement if the complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably
`
`prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Courts typically “restrict[] the use of this motion to
`
`pleadings suffering from ‘unintelligibility rather than the want of detail.’” Retzlaff v. Horace
`
`Mann Ins., 738 F. Supp. 2d 564, 568–69 (D. Del. 2010). Further, “[m]otions for a more definite
`
`statement are generally viewed with disfavor, particularly ‘where the information sought by the
`
`motion could easily be obtained by discovery.’” Shahin v. Delaware Dep’t of Fin., No. CIV.A.
`
`10-188-GMS, 2011 WL 2470582, at *3 (D. Del. June 21, 2011). Accordingly, a motion for a
`
`more definite statement should only be granted in “rare instance[s].” Retzlaff, 738 F. Supp. 2d at
`
`569.
`
`cases relying on pre-December 1, 2015 Federal Circuit precedent to find plaintiff’s complaint
`sufficient).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 524
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Realtime’s Detailed Allegations Easily Satisfy the Iqbal/Twombly Notice
`Pleading Standard
`
`The recurring complaint throughout Sony’s motion is that Realtime purportedly has not
`
`alleged “how” the each accused product “infringes the asserted claims, such as how each element
`
`is met by each product.” (Mot. at 7.)2 But the Federal Circuit has repeatedly made clear that
`
`“[t]here is no requirement for [a plaintiff] to ‘prove its case at the pleading stage.’” Lifetime
`
`Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Bill of Lading
`
`Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The complaint
`
`need only put the accused infringer on notice of the activity accused of infringement. Id. Thus,
`
`contrary to Sony’s arguments, “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff
`
`to plead facts establishing that each element of an asserted claim is met.” Nalco Co. v. Chem-
`
`Mod, LLC, No. 2017-1036, slip op. at 19 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2018) (citing Bill of Lading, 681
`
`F.3d at 1335) (emphasis added).
`
`Realtime’s complaint easily exceeds the notice pleading standard. Realtime specifically
`
`identifies the asserted patents (e.g., ¶¶ 8–15), identifies specific categories of accused products as
`
`well as specific models numbers within those categories (e.g., ¶ 17), and identifies Sony’s
`
`conduct that is accused of infringement (e.g., ¶¶ 34–38). The complaint further identifies and
`
`describes in detail the infringing functionalities of the accused products, such as, for example,
`
`their use of H.264 compression, and even provides screenshots and citations to evidence from
`
`Sony’s website in support of those allegations (e.g., ¶¶ 18–29). Still further, Realtime identifies
`
`exemplary claims for each asserted patent (e.g., ¶ 30, identifying claim 40 of the ’046 patent) and
`
`2 See also Mot. at 8 (arguing that Realtime fails to allege “how” the accused products use the
`H.264 standard); 9 (arguing that Realtime fails to explain “how each product meets each claim
`element); 12 (arguing that Realtime fails to “explain how the elements of the asserted claims are
`met”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 525
`
`provides element-by-element analyses of those exemplary claims (e.g., ¶¶ 26–31). This far
`
`exceeds the minimum requirements under the Rules, and certainly “contains enough detail to
`
`allow [Sony] to answer.” Phonometrics, 203 F.3d at 794; see also United States Gypsum Co. v.
`
`New NGC, Inc., No. CV 17-130-VAC-MPT, 2017 WL 2538569, at *2 (D. Del. June 12, 2017),
`
`aff’d, 2017 WL 5187845 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2017) (“A plaintiff may have a plausible claim for
`
`direct infringement ‘sufficient to withstand Iqbal/Twombly scrutiny’ by ‘specifically identifying .
`
`. . products’ which ‘perform the same unique function as [the] patented system.’”); DermaFocus
`
`LLC v. Ulthera, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 465, 469 (D. Del. 2016) (same).
`
`Sony’s assertion that Realtime is required to explain “how each product meets each claim
`
`element” (Mot. at 9) is unsupported and contrary to Federal Circuit and this Court’s precedents.
`
`A complaint need not include an exhaustive list of accused products, let alone explain how each
`
`accused product meets each limitation of the asserted patents. Not surprisingly, Sony fails to cite
`
`a single case imposing such an onerous requirement at the pleading stage. Indeed, courts in this
`
`District have expressly declined to require such detail in the complaint, especially in light of the
`
`patent disclosures required under the local rules. See Prowire, 2017 WL 3444689, at *3 (“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.”); IP Commc’n
`
`Sols., LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc., No. CV 16-134-GMS, 2017 WL 1312942, at *2 (D. Del.
`
`Apr. 5, 2017) (recognizing that the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery provides that
`
`“[w]ithin 30 days after the Rule 16 Conference and for each defendant, the plaintiff shall
`
`specifically identify the accused products and the asserted patent(s) they allegedly infringe, and
`
`produce the file history for each asserted patent” and denying motion to dismiss with respect to
`
`plaintiff’s direct infringement claims).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 526
`
`Sony’s assertions that Realtime fails to explain “how each product uses [the H.264 and
`
`H.265] standard[s]” and “how use of such standard(s) meets the claim elements of each asserted
`
`claim” (Mot. at 11–13) fail for the same reasons. Realtime is not required to provide detailed
`
`infringement contentions in its complaint. To the extent that Sony disputes that its use of the
`
`H.264 and H.265 standards supports infringement, this raises a factual issue not appropriate for
`
`resolution at the pleading stage.
`
`Sony’s assertion that it is “completely unclear as to which Accused Instrumentalities are
`
`alleged to infringe” (Mot. at 9) is also meritless. It is clear from the complaint that all of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to infringe the asserted patents—hence the label
`
`“Accused” Instrumentalities. (See, e.g., D.I. 1 ¶ 17 (“On information and belief, Sony has made,
`
`used, offered for sale, sold and/or imported into the United States Sony products that infringe the
`
`’046 Patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
`
`include, without limitation, [list of accused products] (‘Accused Instrumentalities’).”).) In fact,
`
`on a different page in its motion, Sony contradicts its purported confusion about which products
`
`are alleged to infringe, stating that “Realtime summarily alleges that . . . Sony’s use and testing
`
`of all of the ‘Accused Instrumentalities’ meets the claim language” of exemplary claim 40 of the
`
`’046 patent. (Mot. at 8 (emphasis in original).) Sony cannot credibly argue that it does not
`
`understand which of the Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to infringe the asserted patents.
`
`Sony also mischaracterizes the element-by-element analyses recited in the complaint. For
`
`example, Sony asserts that the complaint recites “‘CAVLC’ or ‘CABAC’ encoder, without
`
`explaining how such encoders are ‘asymmetric’ encoders.” (Mot. at 9.) As an initial matter, such
`
`explanation is not necessary in a notice pleading. But in any event, Realtime did explain why
`
`they are asymmetric: “Both encoders [i.e., CAVLC and CABAC] are asymmetric compressors
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 527
`
`because it takes a longer period of time for them to compress data than to decompress data.”
`
`(D.I. 1 ¶ 28.) Sony’s arguments are legally and factually incorrect.
`
`B.
`
`Realtime Is Not Required to Identify All Asserted Claims or Provide an
`Exhaustive List of All Accused Products in the Complaint
`
`Sony’s assertion that Realtime is required to “list the ‘other claims’ that it alleges Sony
`
`infringes” (Mot. at 10) is unsupported. Realtime has identified one exemplary claim from each
`
`asserted patent, which is all that is required. See Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. CV
`
`16-679-RGA-MPT, 2017 WL 1296026, at *5 (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2017), report and rec. adopted in
`
`relevant part, 2017 WL 3736750 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017) (allegations that the accused systems
`
`meet the limitations of “at least” 2 exemplary claims sufficient); Philips v. ASUSTeK Computer
`
`Inc., No. CV 15-1125-GMS, 2016 WL 6246763, at *3 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2016) (rejecting
`
`argument that plaintiff’s “use of exemplary—rather than exhaustive—lists of products and
`
`claims renders the FAC deficient” and denying motion to dismiss).
`
`Nor is Realtime required to provide an exhaustive list of all accused products. To the
`
`contrary, this Court has noted that imposing such a requirement at the pleading stage “would be
`
`nonsensical” where, as here, Realtime “does not have access to [Sony’s] computer code.” IP
`
`Commc’n Sols., 2017 WL 1312942, at *3; see also DermaFocus, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 469 & n.4
`
`(“In the context of patent litigation, it is logical to presume that a defendant has greater access to
`
`and,
`
`therefore, more information about
`
`its accused method[, system, or apparatus].”).
`
`Nonetheless, Realtime’s complaint goes beyond the minimum pleading standard and identifies
`
`not only specific categories of accused products, but also specific model numbers within those
`
`categories. (See, e.g., D.I. 1 ¶ 17.)
`
`Sony’s assertion that this is “tantamount to a general statement that thousands of different
`
`types of Sony products may infringe” (Mot. at 10) is nonsensical. In the Hewlett-Packard case
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 528
`
`relied on by Sony, the plaintiff broadly accused all of the defendant’s “software and hardware
`
`products.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Intergraph Corp., No. C 03-2517 MJJ, 2003 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 26092, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2003). There is simply no comparison to Realtime’s
`
`highly specific list of accused products. And while it is true that Realtime did not identify
`
`specific model numbers for a few categories of accused products, this does not somehow render
`
`the complaint unintelligible, as Sony contends. The categories that are identified in the complaint
`
`are specific and narrow. See Zimmer, 2017 WL 1296026, at *5 (rejecting defendant’s argument
`
`that the accused “consumables” was impermissibly vague). Sony’s assertion that these products
`
`“do not in any way implicate the asserted standards” (Mot. at 14) amounts to a non-infringement
`
`argument that is improper for resolution on a Rule 12 motion. Sony also fails to explain how the
`
`fact that the “Video Unlimited 4K” service is “discontinued” (id. at 14) bears any relevance to
`
`the issues raised in its motion—because it does not.
`
`The Taurus IP case cited by Sony also does not support its position. To the extent that
`
`this case—a Western District of Wisconsin case—holds that the plaintiff is required to identify
`
`all asserted products and claims in the complaint, not only is it not binding on this Court, but it
`
`directly conflicts with this Court’s precedents. See, e.g., Philips, 2016 WL 6246763, at *3
`
`(rejecting argument that plaintiff’s “use of exemplary—rather than exhaustive—lists of products
`
`and claims renders the FAC deficient”). Taurus IP is also factually distinguishable in that the
`
`plaintiff broadly accused all products “available for configuration” on the defendants’ various
`
`websites, internal databases, and dealer portals, which in turn contained “links to thousands of
`
`products, parts, services and other websites that contain many more links” and “thousands of
`
`internal databases and dealer portals that contain thousands of products, services, and web
`
`pages.” Taurus IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 539 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1124–25 (W.D. Wis. 2008).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 529
`
`Whereas in Hewlett-Packard and Taurus, the number of potential accused products was
`
`essentially boundless, Realtime’s complaint specifically identifies narrow categories of products
`
`and thus sufficiently puts Sony on notice of what it must defend. That is all that is required at this
`
`stage. Realtime will provide additional specificity regarding its infringement contentions in
`
`accordance with the local rules. See Philips, 2016 WL 6246763, at *3 (further specificity not
`
`required in the complaint in light of the disclosure requirements of § 4.a. of Delaware Default
`
`Standard for Discovery); IP Commc’n Sols., 2017 WL 1312942, at *2 (same). “These rules were
`
`promulgated post Twombly/Iqbal and are consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s
`
`and courts’ concern that a complaint ‘give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is
`
`and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id.
`
`C.
`
`Sony’s Arguments Regarding the “Encoding” and “Decoding” Are Meritless
`and Improper on a Rule 12 Motion
`
`Sony argues that the complaint is deficient because “Realtime accuses Sony ‘encoding’
`
`products of alleged infringement by virtue of their decoders and decoding abilities and, vice
`
`versa, accuses Sony ‘decoding’ products of infringing by virtue of their encoding abilities.” (Mot. at
`
`14–15.) This oversimplification fails for multiple reasons.
`
`As an initial matter, these arguments at best raise factual issues, which are inappropriate for
`
`resolution on a Rule 12 motion. Further, Sony’s characterization is wrong. For example, Count II
`
`concerns infringement of the ’462 Patent which relates to methods for coding a video signal using
`
`hybrid coding. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the accused products “incorporate a decoder
`
`compatible with the latest H.265/HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding) video compression
`
`format, enabling them to display 4K/60p content from internet streams and other sources, without
`
`the need for additional devices” and “In addition to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC (Advanced Video
`
`Coding), this new 4K media player incorporates a decoder compatible with the advanced HEVC
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 530
`
`compression format.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`incorporate a decoder compatible with the latest ‘HEVC’ video
`
`compression format.” (D.I. 1 ¶ 42).
`
`It
`
`is thus sufficiently clear that
`
`the referenced decoders do not relate exclusively to
`
`decoding/decompression, as Sony suggests. The H.265/HEVC standard directly relates
`
`to
`
`coding/compression, therefore it is certainly reasonable to infer that the alleged HEVC-compatible
`
`decoders are capable of coding/compression.3 That Sony may disagree with this inference is
`
`irrelevant. Lifetime Indus., 869 F.3d at 1379 (whether the “inferences are, in fact, correct or that they
`
`are the only fair inferences to be drawn from the facts alleged” irrelevant to Rule 12 motion);
`
`Gypsum, 2017 WL 2538569, at *1 (“The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but
`
`whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”).
`
`Moreover, the complaint expressly alleges that “[t]he Accused Instrumentalities perform a
`
`method for coding a video signal using hybrid coding.” (D.I. ¶ 44.) This and the other allegations that
`
`the accused products perform the claim elements are to be taken as true with all reasonable
`
`inferences to be drawn in Realtime’s favor. And while detailed explanations regarding how each
`
`claim element is met are not required, Realtime nonetheless provides explanations spanning several
`
`pages, facts, and citations to evidence in support of its allegations. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 42–54.)
`
`Additional detail and support for Realtime’s infringement theories will be obtained in discovery.
`
`D.
`
`Realtime Has Sufficiently Plead Ownership of All Asserted Patents
`
`The complaint expressly alleges that Realtime is the “owner and assignee” of each
`
`asserted patent, including the ’462 and ’298 patents. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 9–15.) These allegations are to be
`
`taken as true, and, contrary to Sony’s assertions, Realtime is not required to “allege how or when
`
`Realtime became the owner” (Mot. at 16). See Phonometrics, 203 F.3d at 794 (plaintiff need
`
`only allege “ownership of the asserted patent”). Tellingly, Sony fails to cite a single case in
`
`3 It is likewise reasonable to infer that for the decompression patents, the referenced encoders are
`capable of both encoding/compression and decoding/decompression. (See, e.g., D.I. 1 ¶ 76.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 19 Filed 03/06/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 531
`
`support of its position. The proper vehicle for Sony to obtain additional information regarding a
`
`potential standing defense is through discovery—not a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite
`
`statement. See Shahin, 2011 WL 2470582, at *3 (“Motions for a more definite statement are
`
`generally viewed with disfavor, particularly ‘where the information sought by the motion could
`
`easily be obtained by discovery.’”).
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Sony’s motion for a more definite statement should be denied.
`
`Dated: March 6, 2018
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`Reza Mirzaie
`Brian D. Ledahl
`C. Jay Chung
`Philip X. Wang
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`pwang@raklaw.com
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
`Sara E. Bussiere (No. 5725)
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Phone: (302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC
`
`10
`
`