`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 20-0665-CFC
`
`BLACKBOARD, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, this lawsuit was filed 1 on August 11, 201 7 and alleges that
`
`Defendant Blackboard, Inc. infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,578 and 7,069,293;
`
`WHEREAS, based on the briefing and a sealed filing in Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC, C.A. No. 17-1658-CFC, 2020 WL 7771219 (D. Del. Dec.
`
`30, 2020) the Court had reason to believe that the patents asserted in this case were
`
`licensed to third-party Fortress Credit Co. LLC and that Fortress had the ability to
`
`1 The present action was originally filed by Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`Luxembourg, S.A. Uniloc 2017 was substituted as Plaintiff on January 10, 2020.
`D.I. 68.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00665-CFC Document 98 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 436
`
`grant Blackboard a license to the asserted patents on the date this suit was filed,
`
`C.A. No. 17-1658, D.I. 58-1 at 119;2
`
`WHEREAS, "under WiAV [Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 1257,
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010),] the plaintiff in an infringement case ... lacks constitutional
`
`standing to sue [a] defendant if another party has the ability to grant the defendant
`
`a license to the patent." Uniloc v. Motorola, 2020 WL 7771219 at *6;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court directed the parties' attention to its decision in Uniloc
`
`v. Motorola and ordered the parties to submit letter briefs "addressing whether the
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this patent infringement action," Oral
`
`Order of Jan. 21, 2021;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court also invited the parties to address in their letters
`
`"whether additional discovery or a stay of the action is necessary," id.;
`
`WHEREAS, Uniloc filed a letter in response to the Court's order but did not
`
`address in its letter whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, but instead
`
`stated that Uniloc v. Motorola "appears" to create issue preclusion as to "various
`
`factual and legal issues" in this case and "that preclusion may thus cause this Court
`
`to find it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action," D.I. 96 at 2;
`
`2 This page number refers to the pagination assigned by CM/ECF.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00665-CFC Document 98 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 437
`
`WHEREAS, Uniloc requested in its letter that the Court stay the case while
`
`Uniloc v. Motorola is appealed, D.I. 96 at 2;
`
`WHEREAS, nowhere in its letter did Uniloc assert that the Court has subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over this action or that Uniloc has standing to bring its
`
`infringement claims;
`
`WHEREAS, " [t]he party bringing the action bears the burden of establishing
`
`that it has standing," Sicom Sys. v. Agilent Techs. , Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 976 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (applying Third Circuit law); and
`
`WHEREAS, Uniloc, in failing to directly answer whether the Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction, has not met this burden;
`
`NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this Twenty-eighth day of January in
`
`2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED for lack of
`
`subject matter jurisdiction and the Court of the Clerk is directed to CLOSE the
`
`case.
`
`3
`
`