Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 33 Filed 11/16/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1500
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No. 23-122-RGA
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS
`GLOBAL PTE. LTD., and ASUS
`TECHNOLOGY PTE. LIMITED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Before me is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
`
`Pursuant to FED. R. C1v. P. 12(b)(2) & (6). (D.I. 20). I have considered the parties' briefing.
`
`(D.I. 21, 26, 27).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`In the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), PlaintiffLiTL alleges Defendants ASUSTeK
`
`Computer Inc. ("ASUSTeK"), Asus Global Pte. Ltd. ("ASGL"), and Asus Technology Pte.
`
`Limited ("ASTP") infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,289,688 ("the '688
`
`patent"); 8,624,844 ("the '844 patent"); 9,563,229 ("the '229 patent "); 10,289,154 ("the '154
`
`patent"); 9,003,315 ("the '3 15 patent"); 9,880,715 ("the '715 patent"); 10,564,818 ("the '818
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 33 Filed 11/16/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1501
`
`patent"); and 8,612,888 ("the ' 888 patent") (collectively, "the Asserted Patents."). (D.I. 1912).
`
`The Asserted Patents relate to computing devices that can be used in multiple display modes.
`
`(Id. 1 40). Defendants move to dismiss the F AC for failure to state a claim of (1 ) pre-suit
`
`induced infringement against ASUSTeK under the ' 688 patent, (2) willful infringement against
`
`ASUSTeK under the ' 688 patent, and (3) post-filing induced infringement against Defendants
`
`under the Asserted Patents. (D.I. 20; D.I. 21 at 2). Defendants also seek to dismiss ASTP as a
`
`defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction. (D.I. 20; D.I. 21 at 2).
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 8 requires a complainant to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim
`
`showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. Crv. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) allows the
`
`accused party to bring a motion to dismiss the claim for failing to meet this standard. A Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion may be granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint
`
`as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the complainant, a court concludes that
`
`those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
`
`The factual allegations do not have to be detailed, but they must provide more than
`
`labels, conclusions, or a "formulaic recitation" of the claim elements. Id. at 555 ("Factual
`
`allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .. . on the
`
`assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).").
`
`Moreover, there must be sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim to relief.
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The facial plausibility standard is satisfied when the
`
`complaint's factual content "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
`
`is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. ("Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 33 Filed 11/16/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1502
`
`consistent with a defendant' s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and
`
`plausibility of entitlement to relief." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`111. DISCUSSION
`
`This lawsuit is one in a series of patent infringement actions related to the Asserted
`
`Patents, including LiTL's now dismissed lawsuit against Lenovo. See LiTL LLC v. Lenovo
`
`(United States) , Inc., C.A. No. 20-689-RGA, D.I. 119 (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2023). Lenovo involved
`
`similar arguments to the ones now raised by Defendants.
`
`A. Pre-Suit Induced Infringement
`
`In Lenovo, I set forth the relevant law. 2022 WL 610739, at *6-10 (D. Del. Jan. 21 ,
`
`2022). "[T]o prove induced infringement, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1 )
`
`direct infringement, (2) knowing inducement of infringement, and (3 ) specific intent to
`
`encourage another's infringement." Id. at 7. "To prove the second element, 'knowing
`
`inducement of infringement,' it logically follows that a plaintiff must prove the following sub(cid:173)
`
`elements: (a) knowledge of the patent(s); (b) knowledge of the direct infringement of the
`
`patent(s); (c) action(s) taken to induce infringement; (d) knowledge the action(s) would induce
`
`the direct infringement; and ( e) some causal link between the inducing acts and the direct
`
`infringement." Id. ( citations omitted). "At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege facts that
`
`would allow a factfinder plausibly to conclude each of these elements and sub-elements is
`
`satisfied." Id.
`
`Defendants argue that the F AC fails to plausibly allege ASUSTeK had pre-suit
`
`knowledge of the '688 patent. (D.I. 21 at 12-16). For its pre-suit induced infringement claim,
`
`Li TL II:USt allege sufficient facts to support an inference that Defendants had knowledge of the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 33 Filed 11/16/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1503
`
`asserted patent prior to the commencement of this suit. Defendants do not challenge LiTL' s
`
`pleading of the other elements.
`
`LiTL has alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible inference that ASUSTeK had pre(cid:173)
`
`suit knowledge of the ' 688 patent.
`
`The '688 patent is cited on the face of one ASUSTeK patent. (D.I. 19 ,i,i 84). The
`
`published version of the patent application that issued as the ' 688 patent ("the ' 832 publication")
`
`is cited on the face of another ASUSTeK patent. (Id. ,i 80). The USPTO examiner cited the ' 688
`
`patent in a rejection of one ASUSTeK patent application and the'832 publication in a rejection of
`
`another. (Id. ,i 83 ; id. ,i 78). ASUSTeK itselfreferenced and discussed the substance of the '832
`
`publication during the prosecution of one application. (Id. ,i 79).
`
`ASUSTeK has cited to the ' 688 patent two times and to the ' 832 publication two times,
`
`and LiTL points to 140 citations to the '688 patent and 168 citations to the '832 publication by
`
`"major players" in the personal computing industry to show the ' 688 patent is well-known in the
`
`industry. (Id. ,i,i 85-86). These statistics adequately support the conclusion. See Lenovo, 2022
`
`WL 610739, at *6-10.
`
`Taken together, these allegations plausibly support an inference that ASUSTeK had pre(cid:173)
`
`suit knowledge of the '688 patent.
`
`B. Willful Infringement
`
`"Under Halo , the concept of 'willfulness' requires . .. no more than deliberate or
`
`intentional infringement." Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946 F.3d
`
`1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Halo , 579 U.S . at 105).
`
`Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the willful infringement claim against ASUSTeK under
`
`the '688 patent relies solely on their argument that they lacked pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 33 Filed 11/16/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1504
`
`(D.I. 21 at 17-18; D.I. 27 at 6). LiTL has plausibly alleged that ASUSTeK had pre-suit
`
`knowledge of the ' 688 patent. At the motion to dismiss stage, that is sufficient to support a claim
`
`of willful infringement. See Lenovo, 2022 WL 610739, at *10.
`
`C. Post-Filing Induced Infringement
`
`"As I recently stated, when induced infringement is alleged, an amended complaint can
`
`operate to plead knowledge since the filing of the original complaint." Id. ( citing Wrinkl, Inc. v.
`
`Facebook, Inc., 2021 WL 4477022, at *7 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2021)); see also Carrum Techs., LLC
`
`v. BMW ofN Am., LLC, 2023 WL 1861150, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 9, 2023). I am not persuaded by
`
`Defendants' policy argument to change my position. (D.I. 21 at 16-17; D.I. 27 at 6). The PAC
`
`sufficiently pleads Defendants' knowledge of the ' 688 patent since the filing of LiTL 's original
`
`complaint.
`
`D. Personal Jurisdiction
`
`Defendants submit that ASTP should be dismissed as a defendant in this case for lack of
`
`personal jurisdiction. (Id. at 5-12; see FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)). LiTL does not object. (D.I. 26
`
`at 18). I therefore grant Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims against ASTP.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and
`
`DENIED in part.
`
`Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the pre-suit induced infringement claims against
`
`ASUSTeK, the willful infringement claims against ASUSTeK, and the post-filing induced
`
`infringement claims against ASUSTeK and ASGL is DENIED.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 33 Filed 11/16/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1505
`
`Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all claims against ASTP is GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Entered this 16___ ~ ay of November, 2023
`
`6
`
`