Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`LOTAME SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 24-00376-MN
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 260
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and INTENT IQ, LLC,
`and DATONICS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Dated: June 6, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Susan E. Morrison (No. 4690)
`Grayson P. Sundermeir (No. 6517)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1114
`(302) 652-5070
`morrison@fr.com
`sundermeir@fr.com
`
`Aamir A. Kazi
`(GA Bar No. 104235)
`1180 Peachtree Street, NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`(404) 892-5005
`kazi@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LOTAME SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 261
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ............................................1 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................2 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................3 
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Legal Standards ..........................................................................................5 
`
`AlmondNet’s Mixed-and-Mashed Infringement Allegations Do
`Not Identify a Single Product that Infringes ..............................................8 
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Should Likewise be
`Dismissed ...................................................................................................9 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Fail Because
`Direct Infringement Is Improperly Pleaded .................................10 
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Fail Because
`No Alleged Pre-Suit Notice .........................................................10 
`
`AlmondNet’s Boilerplate Allegations Do Not State a
`Claim for Induced or Contributory Infringement ........................12 
`
`D. 
`
`Any AlmondNet Claim for Past Damages Should be Dismissed ............13 
`
`VI. 
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................13 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 262
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`10x Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc.,
`No. 19-0862-CFC-SRF, 2019 WL 5595666 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2019) report and
`recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 6037558 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2019) ...................................7
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Freewheel Media, Inc.,
`No. 23-0220-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2023) .......................................................................3
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`No. 23-1373-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2023)........................................................................3
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 18-943-RGA, D.I. 1 (D. Del. June 26, 2018) ......................................................................3
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 19-247-LPS, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2016) .......................................................................3
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Viant Tech. Inc.,
`No 23-0174-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2023) .......................................................................3
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................13
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Boston Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp.,
`415 F. Supp. 3d 482 (D. Del. 2019) ...........................................................................................7
`
`CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 14-5068-JD, 2015 WL 4734951 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) .................................... passim
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................10
`
`CTD Networks, LLC v. Google, LLC,
`No. WA-22-1042-XR, 2023 WL 5417139 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2023) ........................2, 6, 8, 9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 263
`
`
`
`Dynamic Data Techs., LLC v. Brightcove Inc.,
`No. 19-1190-CFC, 2020 WL 4192613 (D. Del. July 21, 2020) (citing VLSI
`Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 18-966-CFC, 2019 WL 1349468, at *2 (D. Del.
`Mar. 26, 2019)..........................................................................................................................11
`
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Bridgelux, Inc.,
`No. 17-03363-JWS, 2018 WL 5606487 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) .......................................11
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. DreamHost LLC,
`No. 18-1173-RGA, 2019 WL 2514418 (D. Del. June 18, 2019) .............................................13
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.,
`311 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (D. Utah 2003) ........................................................................................7
`
`Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 16-2463-WHO, 2017 WL 76950 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2017) .........................................6, 8, 9
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Mallinckrodt Inc. v. E-Z-Em Inc.,
`670 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2009) .........................................................................................10
`
`MONEC Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
`897 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Del. 2012) .........................................................................................12
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 17-0506-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5501489 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017) ), report
`and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 11182741 (D. Del. Jan. 3, 2018) ......................6, 7, 9
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 12-0092-RGA, 2012 WL 2700495 (D. Del. July 5, 2012) ...............................................13
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 351 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 19-1904-WHO, 2019 WL 8810168 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) ..........................................7
`
`Xpoint Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`730 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2010) .........................................................................................11
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Del. 2021) .........................................................................................11
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.,
`No. 19-1687-CFC-CJB, 2020 WL 5646375 (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2020).....................................11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 264
`
`
`
`ZitoVault v. IBM,
`No. 16-0962-M, 2018 WL 2971179 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) ...........................................6, 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ...................................................................................................................10, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ..........................................................................................................................1, 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 265
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Complaint filed by AlmondNet, Intent IQ, and Datonics (collectively, “AlmondNet”),
`
`which asserts five patents that contain more than 130 claims, fails to provide Lotame with fair
`
`notice of the basis of the infringement allegations against it, and should therefore be dismissed for
`
`failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Instead of making
`
`allegations regarding specific Lotame products that infringe specific patents and claims,
`
`AlmondNet’s Complaint provides nothing more than an incoherent reference to a variety of
`
`Lotame’s products, inconsistently and improperly meshing different products for different
`
`limitations within a single claim. The result is that AlmondNet references more than six products
`
`as allegedly satisfying different limitations of the Asserted Patents, but does not set forth a
`
`plausible claim of infringement for any one of the allegedly infringing products, and the Court
`
`should dismiss AlmondNet’s claims of direct infringement. Due to AlmondNet’s failure to
`
`properly allege direct infringement, or state a plausible factual basis for induced or contributory
`
`infringement, the Court should also dismiss AlmondNet’s claims for indirect infringement.
`
`Finally, the Court should dismiss any claim for past damages due to AlmondNet’s failure to
`
`comply with the patent marketing statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`AlmondNet filed its complaint for patent infringement against Lotame on March 22, 2024.
`
`(D.I. 1.) The Complaint accuses Lotame of directly infringing U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,677,398 (the “’398
`
`Patent”), 8,589,210 (the “’210 Patent”), 10,984,445 (the “’445 Patent”), 8,775,249 (the “’249
`
`Patent”), and 8,494,904 (the “’904 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 12,
`
`22, 32, 42, and 49.) The Complaint further alleges that Lotame is liable for induced and
`
`contributory infringement of the ’398, ’210, and ’445 Patents. (D.I. 1 at 14–15, 24–25, and 34–
`
`35.) Lotame has not yet answered the Complaint. This motion seeks dismissal of AlmondNet’s
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 266
`
`
`
`claims for direct infringement of the Asserted Patents, AlmondNet’s claims of induced and
`
`contributory infringement of the ’398, ’210, and ’445 Patents, and all of AlmondNet’s claims for
`
`past damages.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`AlmondNet fails to adequately plead infringement for any individual Lotame
`
`product, and instead depends on mixed and muddled claim charts that rely upon different products
`
`to meet various elements of an individual asserted claim. Patent infringement “cannot be shown
`
`by a muddled hash of elements from different products.” CTD Networks, LLC v. Google, LLC,
`
`No. WA-22-1042-XR, 2023 WL 5417139, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2023) (quoting Geovector
`
`Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-2463-WHO, 2017 WL 76950, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2017));
`
`see also CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-5068-JD, 2015 WL 4734951, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10,
`
`2015). AlmondNet was required to provide notice of how Lotame allegedly infringes, and
`
`indiscriminately listing different products for different limitations within a claim does not provide
`
`that notice. AlmondNet’s claims for direct infringement should therefore be dismissed for failure
`
`to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to satisfy the
`
`Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.
`
`2.
`
`AlmondNet’s claims for induced and contributory infringement should be
`
`dismissed for three reasons. First, proof of indirect infringement requires proving an underlying
`
`act of direct infringement, and AlmondNet’s failure to properly plead infringement for a single
`
`Lotame product is fatal to its indirect infringement claims. Second, AlmondNet does not allege
`
`any pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents by Lotame. And third, AlmondNet’s indirect
`
`infringement allegations are cursory and lacking in sufficient detail necessary to survive the
`
`pleading stage.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 267
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The Court should dismiss any claim for past damages due to AlmondNet’s failure
`
`to allege compliance with the marking statute in the Complaint.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`AlmondNet has filed multiple cases before this Court against a variety of defendants.1 In
`
`the instant case, AlmondNet has sued Lotame, a digital marketing company, incorporated in
`
`Delaware with a principal place of business in Columbia, Maryland.
`
`
`
`In its boilerplate Complaint, AlmondNet alleges that various “Accused Instrumentalities”
`
`infringe the Asserted Patents. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 12, 22, 32, 42, 49.) Because AlmondNet’s Complaint
`
`uses open ended language to refer to different products from Lotame, AlmondNet attaches five
`
`claim charts to the Complaint to allegedly identify the “Accused Instrumentalities” and provide
`
`notice of how they supposedly infringe one exemplary claim from each of the five Asserted
`
`Patents. (D.I. 1-2, 1-4, 1-6, 1-8, 1-10.) But the claim charts further confuse the issue, as the
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities” AlmondNet identifies in the Complaint and the “Accused
`
`Instrumentalities” it identifies in the attached claim charts are inconsistent. The claim charts
`
`further mix and match between Lotame products and reference activities of third-parties.
`
`For each patent, the Complaint uses open-ended language to refer to the “Accused
`
`Instrumentalities” followed by a list of various Lotame products. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 12 (“certain products
`
`and/or services (‘Accused Instrumentalities’), such as, e.g., Panorama Identity and Lotame’s
`
`Spherical Platform ... directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims of
`
`the ’398 patent.” (emphasis added)); id. at ¶ 22 (similar); id. at ¶ 32 (similar); id. at 42 (similar);
`
`
`1 See, e.g., AlmondNet, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 23-1373-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2023);
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Freewheel Media, Inc., No. 23-0220-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2023);
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Viant Tech. Inc., No 23-0174-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2023);
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings, Inc., No. 18-943-RGA, D.I. 1 (D. Del. June 26, 2018);
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings, Inc., No. 19-247-LPS, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2016).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 268
`
`
`
`id. at ¶ 49 (similar)). AlmondNet’s five claim charts then mix and match references to at least six
`
`different Lotame products—Lotame Data Exchange, Lotame Data Stream, Lotame Lightning Tag,
`
`Lotame Panaroma ID, Lotame Spherical Platform, and Lotame Sync Tag—and a seventh product,
`
`Oracle BlueKai, owned and operated by a third-party that describes itself as a “data marketplace”
`
`service.2 Lotame has no way to tell what is actually accused—whether it is one of the multiple
`
`products identified in the Complaint, the products referenced in the claim chart, or some
`
`combination of both.
`
`For example, while the Complaint identifies the “Accused Instrumentalities” for the ’210
`
`Patent as Lotame Data Exchange and Lotame Data Steam (D.I. 1 at ¶ 22), the corresponding claim
`
`chart (D.I. 1-4) cites features from those products along with features from unaccused products
`
`Lotame Sync Tag, Lotame Panorama ID, and Lotame Lightning Tag to satisfy the charted claim
`
`limitations. The Complaint again identifies Lotame Data Exchange and Lotame Data Stream as
`
`the “Accused Instrumentalities” for the ’445 Patent (D.I. 1 at ¶ 32), but does not mention Lotame’s
`
`Data Stream product in the claim chart at all (D.I. 1-6). Instead, AlmondNet spends pages detailing
`
`the features of Oracle BlueKai, a product offered by a third-party vendor that happens to mention
`
`Lotame on its list of data sources. (See D.I. 1-6; supra note 2.) The table below identifies the
`
`different products AlmondNet includes in its claim charts, and the red text indicates where the
`
`claim chart identifies a product that AlmondNet’s Complaint did not identify as an “Accused
`
`Instrumentality” for that claim or limitation:
`
`Claim Element
`D.I. 1-2
`’398 Patent, claim 1 [preamble]
`’398 Patent, claim 1(a)
`
`Charted Product(s)
`
`Panorama ID
`Data Exchange, Panorama ID, Spherical Platform
`
`
`2 Oracle, Oracle Data Marketplace, https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/data-cloud/data-cloud-
`help-center/Help/AudienceDataMarketplace/AudienceDataMarketplace.html (last visited June 6,
`2024).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 269
`
`
`
`’398 Patent, claim 1(b)
`’398 Patent, claim 1(c)
`D.I. 1-4
`’210 Patent, claim 1 [preamble]
`’210 Patent, claim 1(a)
`’210 Patent, claim 1(b)
`’210 Patent, claim 1(c)
`’210 Patent, claim 1(d)
`’210 Patent, claim 1(e)
`D.I. 1-6
`’445 Patent, claim 1 [preamble]
`’445 Patent, claim 1(a)
`’445 Patent, claim 1(b)(i)
`’445 Patent, claim 1(b)(ii)
`’445 Patent, claim 1(c)
`D.I. 1-8
`’249 Patent, claim 1 [preamble]
`’249 Patent, claim 1(a)
`’249 Patent, claim 1(b)
`’249 Patent, claim 1(c)
`’249 Patent, claim 1(d)
`’249 Patent, claim 1(e)
`
`D.I. 1-10
`’904 Patent, claim 1 [preamble]
`’904 Patent, claim 1(a)
`’904 Patent, claim 1(b)
`’904 Patent, claim 1(c)
`’904 Patent, claim 1(d)
`
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`Panorama ID, Spherical Platform
`Panorama ID, Spherical Platform
`
`Data Exchange, Data Stream
`Data Exchange, Data Stream
`Data Exchange, Data Stream, Sync Tag, Panorama ID
`Panorama ID, Lightning Tag
`Panorama ID, Lightning Tag
`Data Exchange, Panorama ID
`
`Data Exchange, Oracle BlueKai
`Data Exchange, Oracle BlueKai
`Oracle BlueKai
`Oracle BlueKai
`Data Exchange
`
`Lightning Tag, Spherical Platform, Data Exchange
`Lightning Tag, Spherical Platform, Data Exchange
`Data Exchange, Data Stream
`Lightning Tag, Data Exchange
`Data Exchange
`Lightning Tag, Spherical Platform, Data Exchange, Data
`Stream
`
`Lightning Tag, Spherical Platform, Data Exchange
`Lightning Tag, Spherical Platform, Data Exchange
`Data Exchange, Data Stream
`Data Exchange
`Lightning Tag, Spherical Platform, Data Exchange, Data
`Stream
`
`A plaintiff must allege factual support for each element of the claim to adequately plead a
`
`claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“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.’” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007))). In this
`
`regard, merely reciting the elements of a claim and providing “conclusory statements” without
`
`further factual support is insufficient. Id. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 270
`
`
`
`of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The purpose of these
`
`pleading requirements is (i) to show that plaintiff has some basis for its allegations, and (ii) to put
`
`the defendant on fair notice of the claims at issue. See id. at 698; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
`
`(explaining a complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds
`
`upon which it rests” (citation omitted)).
`
`To satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, a patent infringement complaint must
`
`“plead[] facts that plausibly indicate that Defendant’s accused products practice each of the
`
`limitations found in the asserted claims.... After all, if it is not plausible, after reading the
`
`complaint, that the accused infringer’s product reads on a limitation in the one asserted claim from
`
`a patent-in-suit, then it is not plausible that the accused infringer actually infringes the patent claim
`
`(or the patent).” N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 17-0506-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL
`
`5501489, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 11182741
`
`(D. Del. Jan. 3, 2018) (citations omitted).
`
`Importantly, “[i]nfringement cannot be shown by a muddled hash of elements from
`
`different products, since in order to infringe, ‘the accused device must contain each limitation of
`
`the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.’” CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-5068-JD, 2015
`
`WL 4734951, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) (quoting TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`
`731 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); see also CTD Networks, 2023 WL 5417139, at *5.
`
`Therefore, a plaintiff must, “at a minimum, ‘chart a single product against all elements.’ A plaintiff
`
`does not satisfy this requirement by ‘mixing and matching between different accused products’
`
`in its claim charts.” Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-2463-WHO, 2017 WL
`
`76950, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2017) (quoting CAP Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *2) (emphasis
`
`added); see also CTD Networks, 2023 WL 5417139, at *5; ZitoVault v. IBM, No. 16-0962-M, 2018
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 271
`
`
`
`WL 2971179, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) (stating it would be improper to “only chart [one
`
`product’s] functionality for some limitations and [another product’s] functionality for other
`
`limitations”); Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1306 (D. Utah
`
`2003) (granting summary judgement for non-infringement because plaintiff did not show that
`
`“each of the accused devices” contained all elements of the asserted claim); Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`
`Apple, Inc., No. 19-1904-WHO, 2019 WL 8810168, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019).
`
`Further, “a patentee cannot meet its obligation to assert a plausible claim of infringement
`
`under the Twombly/Iqbal standard by merely copying the language of a claim element and then
`
`baldly stating (without more) that an accused product has such an element.” N. Star Innovations,
`
`2017 WL 5501489, at *2; SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 351, 353 (D. Del. 2017)
`
`(dismissing complaint which “contain[ed] no attempt to connect anything in the patent claims to
`
`anything about any of the accused products”); Boston Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 415 F. Supp. 3d
`
`482, 489 (D. Del. 2019) (“[A] plaintiff must generally do more than assert that the product
`
`infringes the claim; it must show how the defendant plausibly infringes by alleging some facts
`
`connecting the alleging infringing product to the claim elements”). In particular, because many of
`
`the claims at issue here are method claims, “to plead a cause of action for direct infringement of a
`
`method claim, the complaint must allege that the accused infringer performed all the steps of the
`
`claimed method, either personally or through another acting under his direction or control.” 10x
`
`Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc., No. 19-0862-CFC-SRF, 2019 WL 5595666, at *11 (D. Del. Oct.
`
`30, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 6037558 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2019)
`
`(cleaned up).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 272
`
`
`
`B.
`
`AlmondNet’s Mixed-and-Mashed Infringement Allegations Do Not Identify a
`Single Product that Infringes
`
`AlmondNet arbitrarily cites documentation from at least six different Lotame products and
`
`a seventh product from a third-party data company to support its jumbled infringement allegations
`
`for the exemplary claims of the Asserted Patents. This improper mixing-and-matching of features
`
`from different Lotame products fails to properly allege infringement for any individual one of
`
`those products. Indeed, for four of the Asserted Patents, AlmondNet fails to chart or allege an
`
`individual Lotame product satisfies each charted limitation.
`
`More specifically, AlmondNet has failed to meet its initial burden to “at a minimum, ‘chart
`
`a single product against all elements.’” Geovector Corp., 2017 WL 76950, at *4 (quoting CAP
`
`Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *2). Rather, for each asserted claim of the Asserted Patents,
`
`AlmondNet has engaged in improper “‘mixing and matching between different accused products’
`
`in its claim charts.” Id. (quoting CAP Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *2). For example, AlmondNet
`
`mixes three different Lotame products to satisfy the claim limitations of the ’398 Patent, five
`
`different Lotame products to satisfy the claim limitations of the ’210 Patent, one Lotame product
`
`and the product of a third party to satisfy the claim limitations of the ’445 Patent, four different
`
`Lotame products for the ’249 Patent, and four different products for the ’904 Patent. See Table,
`
`supra, at 4–5. Such an attempt must be rejected because “[i]nfringement cannot be shown by a
`
`muddled hash of elements from different products.” CTD Networks, 2023 WL 5417139, at *5
`
`(quoting Geovector Corp., 2017 WL 76950, at *4). AlmondNet cannot adequately plead
`
`infringement by cherry-picking various functionalities across a range of products and
`
`inconsistently match them to exemplary claims of the Asserted Patents. Its direct infringement
`
`claims for the Asserted Patents should thus be dismissed.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 273
`
`
`
`Even worse, for the ’210, ’445, ’249, and ’904 Patents, AlmondNet fails to allege a single
`
`Lotame product infringes the exemplary claims. For example, claim 1 of the ’210 Patent cites
`
`Lotame’s Data Exchange and Data Stream for claim 1(a), but also Lotame’s Sync Tag for claim
`
`1(b), Lotame’s Panaroma ID for claim 1(c), and Lotame’s Lightning Tag for claim 1(d). (See D.I.
`
`1-4.) These are all different products and different “Alleged Instrumentalities.” Even if
`
`AlmondNet wished to allege that the five products cited in ’210 Patent’s claim chart are part of a
`
`larger singular product, AlmondNet must cite sufficient evidence that their accused functionalities
`
`work together as part of an integrated system. Geovector Corp., 2017 WL 76950, at *4; ZitoVault,
`
`2018 WL 2971179, at *3. AlmondNet does make such an allegation, and if it had, such an
`
`unsupported conclusory allegation would not satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal standard. See N. Star
`
`Innovations, 2017 WL 5501489, at *2. As such, AlmondNet’s direct infringement claims for the
`
`’210, ’445, ’249, and ’904 Patents should further be dismissed.
`
`That AlmondNet only mentions Lotame’s Panorama ID in each charted element for the
`
`’398 Patent does not cure the deficiencies in its Complaint. Instead, AlmondNet combines features
`
`of three Lotame products—Lotame’s Panorama ID, Lotame’s Spherical Platform, and Lotame’s
`
`Data Exchange—to allege that the exemplary claim is infringed. AlmondNet’s jumbled
`
`allegations fail to properly “chart a single product against all elements,” Geovector Corp., 2017
`
`WL 76950, at *4 (quoting CAP Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *2), and its claims of direct
`
`infringement should thus be dismissed.
`
`C.
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Should Likewise be Dismissed
`
`To state a claim for induced infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that
`
`Defendant “knew of the patent and knew as well that the ‘induced acts constitute patent
`
`infringement.’” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639 (2015) (quoting Global-
`
`Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011)); see also Global-Tech Appliances,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 274
`
`
`
`Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011) (“induced infringement under § 271(b) requires
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement”). To state a claim for contributory
`
`infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that defendant “knew that the combination for
`
`which its components were especially made was both patented and infringing and that defendant’s
`
`components have no substantial non-infringing uses.” Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). AlmondNet makes
`
`no such allegations, and its allegations of indirect infringement of the claims of the ’398, ’210, and
`
`’445 patents must be dismissed.
`
`1.
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Fail Because Direct
`Infringement Is Improperly Pleaded
`
`As an initial matter, AlmondNet’s indirect infringement allegations for the ’398, ’210, and
`
`’445 Patents fail because AlmondNet has not alleged facts showing direct infringement of any
`
`claim (as detailed above). See Mallinckrodt Inc. v. E-Z-Em Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 349, 354 (D. Del.
`
`2009) (“Claims for indirect infringement cannot exist in the absence of direct infringement.”).
`
`2.
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Fail Because No Alleged
`Pre-Suit Notice
`
`AlmondNet’s indirect infringement claims also fail because the complaint lacks any
`
`allegation that Lotame was aware of the ’398, ’210, and ’445 Patents before the Complaint was
`
`filed, and thus fails to provide a plausible factual basis for concluding that Lotame had engaged in
`
`indirect infringement as of the time the complaint was filed. Indeed, AlmondNet relies entirely on
`
`the filing of its Complaint to allege any notice of infringement for the purposes of its inducement
`
`allegations. (See D.I. 1 at ¶ 14 (“Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendant has had knowledge of the ’398 patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.”); see also id. at ¶¶ 24, 34.) AlmondNet’s failure to allege pre-suit knowledge
`
`of the patents is thus fatal to its indirect infringement claims, which should be dismissed. See
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 275
`
`
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., No. 19-1687-CFC-CJB, 2020 WL 5646375, at *2
`
`(D. Del. Sept. 22, 2020), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, 528 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 247 (D. Del. 2021) (“[A] party cannot plausibly claim in a complaint that its adversary
`
`had knowledge of infringement of the patent-in-suit (required for both induced and contributory
`
`infringement claims) or had the specific intent to encourage another’s infringement (required for
`
`an induced infringement claim) when, prior to the very moment that this complaint was filed, its
`
`adversary had never actually: (1) been aware of the patent’s existence; (2) known that the patent
`
`was being infringed; or (3) intended that anyone infringe the patent.”); see also Dynamic Data
`
`Techs., LLC v. Brightcove Inc., No. 19-1190-CFC, 2020 WL 4192613, at *3 (D. Del. July 21,
`
`2020) (“[T]he complaint itself cannot be the source of knowledge required to sustain claims of
`
`induced infringement.” (citing VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 18-966-CFC, 2019 WL
`
`1349468, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2019))); Xpoint Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 730 F. Supp. 2d
`
`349, 357 (D. Del. 2010) (“However, knowledge after filing of the present action is not sufficient
`
`for pleading the requisite knowledge for indirect infringement.”); Everlight Elecs. Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Bridgelux, Inc., No. 17-03363-JWS, 2018 WL 5606487, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) (“This
`
`Court remains convinced to follow the line of authorities finding that knowledge after filing of the
`
`present action is not sufficient for pleading the requisite knowledge for indirect infringement.”
`
`(cleaned up)). Any attempt by AlmondNet to allege induced or contributory infringement
`
`prospectively is similarly insufficient. See ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., 528 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 247, 252 (D. Del. 2021) (“[T]he operative complaint in a lawsuit fails to state a claim for
`
`indirect patent infringement where the defendant’s alleged knowledge of the asserted patents is
`
`based solely on the content of that complaint or a prior version of the complaint filed in the same
`
`lawsuit.”).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 13 Filed 06/06/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 276
`
`
`
`3.
`
`AlmondNet’s Boilerplate Alleg