Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 230
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-943 (CFC)
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT OATH HOLDINGS INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Brian P. Egan (#6227)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`began@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Patrick D. Curran
`John T. McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`(212-849-7000
`
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415-875-6600
`
`
`September 21, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 231
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`AlmondNet’s Direct Infringement Allegations Fail under the Standard Set
`Forth in AlmondNet’s Opposition ...........................................................................1 
`
`AlmondNet’s Arguments on Willful Infringement Mischaracterize the
`Law and Are Undermined by AlmondNet’s Own Allegations ................................4 
`
`AlmondNet’s Arguments on Indirect Infringement Rely on an Incorrect
`Interpretation of the Law .........................................................................................6 
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................9 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 232
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................4, 6, 7
`
`Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l., Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-4049, 2012 WL 2343163 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) ..................................................8
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Clouding IP, LLC v. Amazon,
`No. 12-641, -642, and -675, 2013 WL 2293452 (D. Del. 2013) ...............................................6
`
`Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
` No. 16-197-SLR-SRF, 2017 WL 374484 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2017) ............................................ 3
`
`Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Sys. Products Liability Litig.,
` No. 2:14-cv-18347 .....................................................................................................................2
`
`Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 16-2026 PHX DGC, 2017 WL 679116 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2017) .......................................5
`
`Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, LLC,
`557 U.S. 519 (2009) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co. Ltd.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................7, 9
`
`Eidos Comm’cns, LLC v. Skype Techs. SA,
`686 F. Supp. 2d 465 (D. Del. 2010) ...........................................................................................2
`
`Fifth Market, Inc. v. CME Group, Inc.,
`No. 08-520 GMS, 2009 WL 5966836 (D. Del. May 14, 2009) .................................................2
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-72-BLF, 2017 WL 2462423 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) .............................................5
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ...........................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Infineon Techs. AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corp.,
`D.I. 125, No. 3:11-cv-6239-MMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2012) ..................................................2
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 233
`
`Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Lodsys Group, LLC v. Brother Int’l Corp.,
`Nos. 2:11-cv-90-JRG & 2:11-cv-272-JRG, 2013 WL 5353004 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 24, 2013) ...........................................................................................................................3
`
`Microchip Tech., Inc. v. Delphi Automotive Sys., LLC,
` No. 1:17-cv-1194-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2017) ........................................................................3
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`No. 1:14-cv-2510 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2015) ..............................................................................8
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`No. 11-902, 2013 WL 2295344 (D. Del. 2013) .........................................................................7
`
`United States Gypsum Co. v. New NGC, Inc.,
` No. 17-130-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2017) ...........................................................................3
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc.,
`6:12-cv-366-MHS-JDL, 2013 WL 8482270 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2013) .....................................7
`
`Valinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corp.,
`No. 16-1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2411218 (D. Del. May 29, 2018) ....................................5, 6
`
`Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB,
`No. 15-871-LPS, 2016 WL 3748772 (D. Del. June 12, 2016) ..................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 234
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Instead of addressing head on Oath’s arguments regarding its Complaint’s deficient
`
`direct, willful, and induced infringement allegations, AlmondNet attempts to distract from Oath’s
`
`arguments by focusing on the parties’ New York litigation, oversimplifying the case law, and
`
`summarily dismissing or entirely ignoring authority counseling in favor of dismissing the
`
`Amended Complaint. AlmondNet’s misdirection cannot detract, however, from the facts that
`
`(1) AlmondNet failed to limit its Amended Complaint to a specific product or category of
`
`products, opting instead to accuse Oath’s “services, platforms, products or activities” in an
`
`attempt to engage in a discovery fishing expedition; (2) AlmondNet’s willful infringement
`
`allegations do not allege any facts that would make plausible any “egregious” conduct or any
`
`conduct that would be sufficient for willfulness; and (3) AlmondNet’s indirect infringement
`
`allegations lack facts alleging the necessary specific intent to cause direct infringement.
`
`Accordingly, Oath’s motion should be granted, and AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint should be
`
`dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`AlmondNet’s Direct Infringement Allegations Fail under the Standard Set
`Forth in AlmondNet’s Opposition
`
`AlmondNet contends that “complaints may pass muster by identifying a category of
`
`accused products and an example or examples thereof.” Opp. at 7. However, AlmondNet’s
`
`Amended Complaint did no such thing. Instead, AlmondNet simply accused of infringement all
`
`of Oath’s “services, platforms, products, or activities.” Amended Complaint ¶¶ 29, 48 (accusing
`
`“marketing, selling, offering to sell, providing, instructing, supplying, operating, licensing, or
`
`supporting the services, platforms, products, or activities described in this Complaint.”); see also
`
`¶ 8 (“Oath is a world-wide provider of various Internet-based products and services, including
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 235
`
`online advertising services.”). These types of general allegations, which seek to capture all of
`
`Oath’s “various Internet-based products and services,” do not pass muster. See Fifth Market,
`
`Inc. v. CME Group, Inc., No. 08-520 GMS, 2009 WL 5966836, at *1 (D. Del. May 14, 2009)
`
`(alleging that defendants “infringed the asserted patents by ‘making, using, selling, and/or
`
`offering for sale products and methods covered by the claims of the asserted patents’” “fails to
`
`provide the . . . defendants with fair notice regarding how they infringe the patents-in-suit”); see
`
`also Eidos Comm’cns, LLC v. Skype Techs. SA, 686 F. Supp. 2d 465, 467 (D. Del. 2010)
`
`(dismissing direct infringement allegations because “[t]he complaint at bar does not provide a
`
`general product category”); Infineon Techs. AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corp., D.I. 125, No.
`
`3:11-cv-6239-MMC, at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2012) (dismissing infringement allegations that
`
`extended beyond identified exemplary products and encompassed unspecified “other products”).
`
`AlmondNet argues that its Amended Complaint includes “a detailed factual description
`
`of the accused Oath demand side platforms (DSP)” for the ’615 Patent and “a detailed factual
`
`description of the accused ‘audience data’ or ‘audience extension’ techniques” for the ’100
`
`patent. Opp. at 4-5. AlmondNet’s infringement allegations are not, however, limited to those
`
`“detailed factual descriptions,” but instead, as explained above, implicate all of Oath’s activities.
`
`Without saying what is at issue in this case, AlmondNet argues that somehow, based on the New
`
`York litigation and “Yahoo’s arguments to the PTO” related to other patents, “it defies common
`
`sense to consider that Oath does not know what is at issue” in this case. Opp. at 9. The Court
`
`will look in vain, however, in either AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint or even in its brief for
`
`any definition as to what is “at issue” in this case.
`
`Nor is AlmondNet’s attempt to sweep in all of Oath’s activities without consequence,
`
`because the scope of discovery is defined by the scope of the complaint. See Coloplast Corp.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 236
`
`Pelvic Support Sys. Products Liability Litig., No. 2:14-cv-18347, 2016 WL 6901760, at *4
`
`(S.D.W.V. Nov. 22, 2016) (“It is well-settled law . . . that the scope of discovery may not exceed
`
`the boundaries of the complaint.”); Lodsys Group, LLC v. Brother Int’l Corp., Nos. 2:11-cv-90-
`
`JRG & 2:11-cv-272-JRG, 2013 WL 5353004, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2013) (quoting Bell
`
`Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and noting that “the scope of a litigant’s
`
`claim” is determined based on the initial pleadings).
`
`The cases AlmondNet cites further reflect that to survive a motion to dismiss, product
`
`identifications must be defined in scope. Without such definition, there is no plausible claim for
`
`infringement. In Microchip Tech., Inc. v. Delphi Automotive Sys., LLC, the accused products
`
`were limited to the “Delphi Dual Role Hub,” and defendant allegedly directly infringed the
`
`patents “at least through using and/or testing” that specific product. See Complaint at “Prayer for
`
`Relief,” D.I. 1, No. 1:17-cv-1194-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2017) (“MTI prays . . . for a judgment
`
`that Delphi has directly infringed, induced infringement of, or contributed to infringement of one
`
`or more claims of the Asserted Patents in connection with the Delphi Dual Role Hub”). In
`
`United States Gypsum Co. v. New NGC, Inc., the complaint alleged that “Defendant . . . has in
`
`the past and continues to directly infringe the [Asserted] Patent[s] . . . by making, using offering
`
`for sale, selling and/or importing gypsum board products.” See Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement ¶¶ 34, 46, 69, D.I. 7, No. 17-130-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2017). Finally, in
`
`Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Omnivision Techs., Inc., the allegations at issue were limited to
`
`“image sensors,” and not directed at all of defendant’s products, services, and activities. See No.
`
`16-197-SLR-SRF, 2017 WL 374484, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2017).
`
`Moreover, AlmondNet’s own admissions confirm that it does not have additional,
`
`plausible theories of infringement but seeks to embark on a discovery fishing expedition. In its
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 237
`
`opposition, AlmondNet acknowledges that it only “provided detailed explanations of certain
`
`specifically ‘named’ services and platforms” and then “alluded to the possibility that discovery
`
`might reveal additional infringement in some . . . other products.” Opp. at 9 (emphasis added).
`
`But the “plausibility” standard required to survive Oath’s motion to dismiss “asks for more than
`
`sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`
`(2009). AlmondNet’s attempt to use its broad allegations and discovery to search for “additional
`
`infringement” is the sort of “fishing expedition[]” precluded by Iqbal and Twombly. See Cuomo
`
`v. Clearing House Ass'n, LLC, 557 U.S. 519, 531 (2009) (“Judges are trusted to prevent ‘fishing
`
`expeditions’ or an undirected rummaging through . . . records for evidence of some unknown
`
`wrongdoing.”).
`
`Because AlmondNet did not adequately identify the accused products—failing to limit
`
`itself to “a category of accused products,” but instead attempting to implicate all of Oath’s
`
`“services, platforms, products, or activities”—AlmondNet’s direct infringement allegations
`
`should be dismissed.
`
`B.
`
`AlmondNet’s Arguments on Willful Infringement Mischaracterize the Law
`and Are Undermined by AlmondNet’s Own Allegations
`
`AlmondNet argues that “there is no legal requirement to plead egregious misconduct.”
`
`Opp. at 18. When combined with AlmondNet’s position that willfulness can be based on
`
`conduct “solely after suit is filed” (Opp. at 15), its view of the law would allow willfulness
`
`allegations to survive the pleading stage in every patent infringement case, despite the Supreme
`
`Court precedent dictating that willfulness is reserved only for “egregious” cases. Halo Elecs.,
`
`Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016) (“Awards of enhanced damages . . . are
`
`not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a ‘punitive’ or
`
`‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious infringement behavior.”). Whatever words are used, there
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 238
`
`must be facts alleged that make egregious conduct plausible. See id. (“The sort of conduct
`
`warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our cases as willful, wanton,
`
`malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a
`
`pirate.”). Numerous district courts have reached this conclusion, and AlmondNet does not
`
`challenge any of their holdings. See Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB, No. 15-871-LPS, 2016
`
`WL 3748772, at *7-8 (D. Del. June 12, 2016); Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., No. 17-cv-72-BLF,
`
`2017 WL 2462423, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017); Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., No.
`
`16-2026 PHX DGC, 2017 WL 679116, at *11 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2017). Even courts that have
`
`held that the word “egregious” need not be used have held that the plaintiff must plead facts
`
`showing that the defendant “knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted to
`
`infringement of the patent.” Valinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corp., No. 16-
`
`1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2411218, at *13 (D. Del. May 29, 2018). There are no such facts
`
`alleged here; nor could there be.
`
`AlmondNet argues that it has alleged sufficient conduct based on the parties’ prior
`
`litigation of “related patents.” Opp. at 19. As an initial matter, conduct with respect to other
`
`“related patents” cannot make infringement of the patents-in-suit willful.
`
` Moreover,
`
`AlmondNet’s allegations make no sense. AlmondNet alleges that the asserted patents issued
`
`“after presentation to the patent examiner of the prior art references” Oath identified in its
`
`invalidity contentions for the New York lawsuit. Amended Complaint ¶ 61. At the same time,
`
`AlmondNet alleges that Oath’s “arguments in the New York lawsuit for non-infringement . . . do
`
`not apply to the [asserted] patent[s].” Id. ¶ 62. AlmondNet cannot have it both ways. Either the
`
`asserted patents are sufficiently different that Oath’s non-infringement arguments for the related
`
`patents do not apply (as it alleges), or the asserted patents are sufficiently similar that Oath’s
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 239
`
`arguments with respect to the related patents apply equally to the asserted patents. AlmondNet
`
`may be entitled to present alternative theories for relief, but the Court need not accept mutually
`
`exclusive factual allegations as all being simultaneously true and thus plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`at 679 (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . require[] the
`
`reviewing court to draw on . . . common sense.”).
`
`AlmondNet also argues that post-suit conduct can meet the requirements for willful
`
`infringement. Opp. at 16-18. That misses the point. The issue is not that post-suit conduct
`
`cannot constitute willful infringement, but that AlmondNet’s allegations here do not rise to the
`
`level to render “egregious” conduct plausible. First, as AlmondNet acknowledges (Opp. at 17),
`
`the ‘100 patent was asserted “the exact same day” it issued. There could not possibly have been
`
`any allegation of pre-suit infringement, let alone willful infringement, of a patent that had just
`
`issued that day. And there could be no allegation of post-suit willful infringement, because there
`
`was no post-suit conduct at all on the day the patent issued and the Amended Complaint was
`
`filed. Further, AlmondNet’s arguments regarding Oath’s post-suit conduct with respect to the
`
`‘615 patent are allegations of routine patent infringement and do not satisfy the “egregious”
`
`requirement. In fact, there are no facts alleged that make it plausible that Oath “knew, or should
`
`have known, that its conduct amounted to infringement of the patent.” See Valinge, 2018 WL
`
`2411218, at *13.
`
`None of AlmondNet’s allegations are sufficient to render plausible that Oath engaged in
`
`any conduct constituting willful infringement.
`
`C.
`
`AlmondNet’s Arguments on Indirect Infringement Rely on an Incorrect
`Interpretation of the Law
`
`AlmondNet acknowledges that “allegations that Oath knew of the patents and continued
`
`to infringe . . . was found to be inadequate pleading” in cases from this district: Clouding IP,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 240
`
`LLC v. Amazon, No. 12-641, -642, and -675, 2013 WL 2293452 *3 (D. Del. 2013) (continued
`
`infringement alone insufficient); Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 11-902, 2013 WL
`
`2295344 *1 (D. Del. 2013). Opp. at 13. Instead, AlmondNet argues that its allegations
`
`regarding “Oath’s actions to encourage its customers’ use of the infringing systems” supply the
`
`necessary intent. Id. AlmondNet’s allegations, however, merely refer to instructions, without
`
`further specifying their content. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 71-72:
`
`Oath has encouraged and continues to encourage others to
`71.
`infringe the ‘615 Patent and encourages others to infringe the ‘100
`Patent. In particular, Oath instructs and supports the use by Oath’s
`customers of the infringing Oath’s DSP computer systems or other
`computer systems described herein through Oath’s DSP online
`website interface, customer instruction manuals and instruction
`sheets, and statements made by customer service and training
`representatives. Oath affirmatively promotes customer use of
`audience data or audience extension.
`
`To the extent Oath does not control the Oath’s DSP
`72.
`computer systems or other computer systems described herein,
`Oath’s customers put such computer systems, configured as
`described above, into operation under their control and benefit
`from use of the apparatus, pursuant to Oath’s encouragement,
`instruction, and support.
`
`Such allegations, without any details regarding what Oath instructs its customers to do,
`
`are equally consistent with both an “intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement”
`
`(which cannot sustain a claim for induced infringement) and the requisite “affirmative intent to
`
`cause direct infringement.” See DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co. Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006). Accordingly, AlmondNet’s indirect infringement allegations are inadequate. See Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. at 678 (“Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's
`
`liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted); see also U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc.,
`
`6:12-cv-366-MHS-JDL, 2013 WL 8482270, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2013) (“[Plaintiff]’s
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 241
`
`allegations that [Defendant] ‘supplies’ infringing systems and components and provides
`
`‘instructions’ to its customers who allegedly infringe do not create a reasonable inference of
`
`inducement.”); Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l., Inc., No. 11-cv-4049, 2012 WL
`
`2343163, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) (holding that allegations of “instruction” and “training”
`
`were insufficient to plead specific intent).1
`
`AlmondNet argues that Federal Circuit precedent dictates that “the ‘intent to cause
`
`infringement’ element is satisfied by knowledge of the patent and its scope, coupled with
`
`assisting or directing customers in activity that constitutes infringement.” Opp. at 10.
`
`AlmondNet bases this blanket assertion on two Federal Circuit decisions—Lifetime Industries,
`
`Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—but neither case supports AlmondNet’s position. In Lifetime,
`
`the Complaint alleged that defendant “never made or sold these particular [accused products]
`
`prior to gaining . . . knowledge of [of the asserted patent], and that the [accused products] have
`
`no noninfringing use.” 869 F.3d at 1380. In Nalco, the Complaint included six sections of 10 to
`
`15 bullet points laying out various specific allegations regarding each defendant’s specific intent
`
`to induce infringement that go far beyond merely providing “instructions and technical
`
`assistance.” See, e.g., Plaintiff Nalco Company’s Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement at 24, Dkt. 108, Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-2510 (N.D. Ill. Nov.
`
`16, 2015) (alleging that defendants “form[ed] each of the Refined Coal LLCs specifically for the
`
`purpose of practicing the Chem-ModTM Solution and selling the Chem-ModTM Solution Mixture
`
`to operators of coal-fired power plants”). The Federal Circuit cited these extensive induced
`
`
`1 AlmondNet does not contend that these cases are distinguishable or that its indirect
`infringement allegations would survive under the standards articulated therein. Instead,
`AlmondNet asserts that these cases “are not persuasive” because they disagree with
`AlmondNet’s incorrect articulation of the applicable standard.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 242
`
`infringement allegations—and not just a generic recitation of “providing instructions, support,
`
`and technical assistance”—when it concluded that the allegations in that case were sufficient to
`
`survive a motion to dismiss.
`
`Neither Lifetime nor Nalco transform AlmondNet’s general assertion that “Oath instructs
`
`and supports the use by Oath’s customers of the infringing Oath’s DSP computer systems or
`
`other computer systems described herein” into factual allegations sufficient to render the
`
`required specific intent plausible. The allegations in the Amended Complaint are insufficient to
`
`render plausible that Oath acted with the requisite “affirmative intent to cause direct
`
`infringement.” See DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co. Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For reasons set forth in Oath’s opening brief and herein, AlmondNet’s direct, willful and
`
`indirect infringement claims should be dismissed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Patrick D. Curran
`John T. McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`(212-849-7000
`
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415-875-6600
`
`September 21, 2018
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`_____________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Brian P. Egan (#6227)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`began@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 16 Filed 09/21/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 243
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 21, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
`
`
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`September 21, 2018 upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Louis J. Hoffman, Esquire
`LOUIS J. HOFFMAN, P.C.
`7689 East Paradise Lane, Suite 2
`Scottsdale, AZ 85260
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Ian B. Crosby, Esquire
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`