Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 555
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and INTENT IQ, LLC,
`and DATONICS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 20, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LOTAME SOLUTION, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS ALMONDNET’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`LOTAME SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 24-00376-MN
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 556
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ............................................2 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................3 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................4 
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Legal Standards ..........................................................................................6 
`
`AlmondNet’s Mixed-and-Mashed Infringement Allegations Do
`Not Identify a Single Accused Instrumentality that Infringes ...................8 
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Should Likewise be
`Dismissed .................................................................................................11 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Fail Because
`Direct Infringement Is Improperly Pleaded .................................11 
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Fail Because
`AlmondNet Does Not Allege Pre-Suit Notice .............................12 
`
`AlmondNet’s Boilerplate Allegations Do Not State a
`Claim for Induced or Contributory Infringement ........................13 
`
`D. 
`
`AlmondNet’s Claim for Past Damages Should be Dismissed .................15 
`
`VI. 
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................16 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 557
`
`
`
`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) ........................................8
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Freewheel Media, Inc.,
`No. 23-0220-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2023) .......................................................................4
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`No. 23-1373-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2023)........................................................................4
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 18-943-RGA, D.I. 1 (D. Del. June 26, 2018) ......................................................................4
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 19-247-LPS, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2016) .......................................................................4
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Viant Tech. Inc.,
`No 23-0174-MN, D.I. 1 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2023) .......................................................................4
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................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) ...........................................................................................8
`
`CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 14-5068-JD, 2015 WL 4734951 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) ..........................................3, 7
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................11
`
`Crown Packaging Tech. v. Rexam Beverage Can,
`498 F. Supp. 2d 718 (D. Del. 2007) .........................................................................................15
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 558
`
`
`
`CTD Networks, LLC v. Google, LLC,
`No. WA-22-1042-XR, 2023 WL 5417139 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2023) ......................1, 3, 7, 10
`
`Dynamic Data Techs., LLC v. Brightcove Inc.,
`No. 19-1190-CFC, 2020 WL 4192613 (D. Del. July 21, 2020) ..............................................12
`
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Bridgelux, Inc.,
`No. 17-03363-JWS, 2018 WL 5606487 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) .......................................13
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. DreamHost LLC,
`No. 18-1173-RGA, 2019 WL 2514418 (D. Del. June 18, 2019) .............................................16
`
`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) .......................................7, 9, 10
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Mallinckrodt Inc. v. E-Z-Em Inc.,
`670 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2009) .........................................................................................11
`
`MONEC Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
`897 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Del. 2012) .........................................................................................14
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 17-0506-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5501489 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017) ...................................7, 8
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 12-0092-RGA, 2012 WL 2700495 (D. Del. July 5, 2012) ...............................................14
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 351 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................8
`
`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) .........................................................................................13
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Del. 2021) ...................................................................................12, 13
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.,
`No. 19-1687-CFC-CJB, 2020 WL 5646375 (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2020).....................................12
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 559
`
`
`
`ZitoVault v. IBM,
`No. 16-0962-M, 2018 WL 2971179 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) ...............................................7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ...................................................................................................................11, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ................................................................................................................................2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................1, 3
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 560
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Intent IQ, and Datonics (collectively, “AlmondNet”)’s original
`
`allegations cherry-picked functionalities from multiple Lotame products to create a Frankenstein
`
`infringement theory. For example, in the original allegations against the ’210 Patent, AlmondNet
`
`selected distinct features from five different Lotame products in attempt to show two of those
`
`products were somehow infringed. (D.I. 13 at 4, 9; see also D.I. 1, D.I. 1-2.) Lotame moved to
`
`dismiss these allegations, as “[i]nfringement 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).
`
`AlmondNet’s First Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) does not solve the
`
`problems Lotame identified. The Amended Complaint adds a new section titled “Lotame’s
`
`Accused Instrumentalities,” but AlmondNet then defines that term to include all of the same
`
`individual products and services it identified in its original complaint. That is, rather than identify
`
`the specific accused instrumentalities to address the issues raised in Lotame’s original motion,
`
`AlmondNet simply coins a new term to include the same collection of products it had accused in
`
`its original, deficient Complaint. If anything, the allegations in the Amended Complaint are more
`
`obtuse, as now they just generally refer to “Accused Instrumentalities” (which includes a number
`
`of, or perhaps even all, products) whereas the original Complaint referred to individual products
`
`(although in an incoherent manner). AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint does not set forth a
`
`plausible claim of infringement for any one of the Accused Instrumentalities, and the Court should
`
`dismiss AlmondNet’s claims of direct infringement for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 561
`
`
`
`Due to AlmondNet’s continued 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 marking 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.) Lotame moved to dismiss the original Complaint on June 6, 2024. (D.I. 12.) In lieu of
`
`opposing that motion, AlmondNet amended its Complaint, mooting Lotame’s original Motion to
`
`Dismiss, (D.I. 17).
`
`Though AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint purports to remedy the issues identified in
`
`Lotame’s original Motion to Dismiss, the substance of AlmondNet’s allegations in its Amended
`
`Complaint is largely unchanged from its original Complaint. The Amended 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. 16 at ¶¶ 19, 30, 41, 52, and 60.) AlmondNet
`
`further alleges that Lotame is liable for induced and contributory infringement of the ’398, ’210,
`
`and ’445 Patents. (D.I. 1 at 21–22, 32–33, and 43–44.)
`
`This motion seeks dismissal of AlmondNet’s 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 as to the ’398, ’210, ’249, and ’904
`
`Patents.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 562
`
`
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`AlmondNet fails to adequately plead infringement for any of the “Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.” Its mixed and muddled claim charts rely upon different Lotame products,
`
`including non-Alleged Instrumentalities, 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
`
`Accused Instrumentality 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.
`
`3.
`
`The Court should dismiss any claim for past damages due to AlmondNet’s failure
`
`to allege compliance with the marking statute in the Amended Complaint, as is required for patents
`
`with apparatus claims.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 563
`
`
`
`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 Amended Complaint,
`
`AlmondNet accuses a host of “Lotame’s Accused Instrumentalities.” AlmondNet refers to
`
`Lotame’s “Spherical Platform” as one example of the Accused Instrumentalities, but its definition
`
`of Accused Instrumentalities, however, is not so limited, as it identifies the Spherical Platform and
`
`other Lotame products “without limitation.” (D.I. 16 at ¶ 10, 12.)
`
`Lotame offers multiple products and services in addition to the “Spherical Platform,” and
`
`the substance of AlmondNet’s allegations mix and match these various products. Indeed, the claim
`
`charts included with AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint allegedly identify “representative
`
`Accused Instrumentalities” and describe how they supposedly infringe one exemplary claim from
`
`each of the five Asserted Patents. (D.I. 16-2, 16-4, 16-6, 16-8, 16-10.) But AlmondNet’s five
`
`claim charts then mix and match references to at least six different Lotame products—Lotame’s
`
`Data Exchange, Lotame’s Data Stream, Lotame’s Lightning Tag, Lotame’s Panaroma ID,
`
`Lotame’s Spherical Platform, and Lotame’s Sync Tag—and a seventh product, Oracle BlueKai,
`
`owned and operated by a third-party that describes itself as a “data marketplace” service.2 For
`
`example, the Amended Complaint identifies a single Accused Instrumentality (Lotame’s Spherical
`
`Platform) for the ’210, ’249, and ’904 Patents, yet the corresponding claim charts (D.I. 16-4, 16-
`
`
`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).
`2 Oracle, Oracle Data Marketplace, https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/data-cloud/data-cloud-
`help-center/Help/AudienceDataMarketplace/AudienceDataMarketplace.html (last visited August
`20, 2024).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 564
`
`
`
`8, 16-10) cite features from that product along with features from other products—Lotame Sync
`
`Tag, Lotame Panorama ID, and Lotame Lightning Tag—to satisfy the charted claim limitations.
`
`Other claims rely on a similar tactic. For example, while AlmondNet passingly mentions
`
`another Lotame product—Lotame’s Panorama ID—as a potential Accused Instrumentality for the
`
`’398 Patent (D.I. 16 at ¶ 27), the corresponding claim chart (D.I. 16-2), cites features from an
`
`unaccused instrumentality, Lotame’s Data Exchange. Similarly, a passing mention to Lotame’s
`
`Data Exchange as a potential Accused Instrumentality for the ’445 Patent (D.I. 16 at 49) does not
`
`correspond with the matching claim chart, (D.I. 16-6). 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. 16-6; 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 Amended Complaint did not identify as an
`
`Accused Instrumentality for that claim or limitation:
`
`Claim Element
`D.I. 16-2
`’398 Patent, claim 1 [preamble]
`’398 Patent, claim 1(a)
`’398 Patent, claim 1(b)
`’398 Patent, claim 1(c)
`D.I. 16-4
`’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. 16-6
`’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. 16-8
`
`Charted Product(s)
`
`Panorama ID
`Data Exchange, Panorama ID, Spherical Platform
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 565
`
`
`
`’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. 16-10
`’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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 566
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 567
`
`
`
`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 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).
`
`B.
`
`AlmondNet’s Mixed-and-Mashed Infringement Allegations Do Not Identify a
`Single Accused Instrumentality that Infringes
`
`AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint fails to solve the problems Lotame identified in its
`
`initial motion to dismiss. While AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint adds a section called
`
`“Lotame’s Accused Instrumentalities,” that section fails to provide any meaningful clarity on what
`
`Lotame products AlmondNet is accusing of infringement. AlmondNet also declined to make any
`
`substantive modifications to the claim charts attached to its Amended Complaint. For the same
`
`reasons discussed in Lotame’s initial motion to dismiss, AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint must
`
`also be dismissed.
`
`In its Amended Complaint, AlmondNet’s main modification includes a new section on
`
`“Lotame’s Accused Instrumentalities,” which it defines to encompass all Lotame services and
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 568
`
`
`
`products “without limitation.” (D.I. 16 at ¶ 10.) AlmondNet then broadly accuses that
`
`amalgamation of products of infringement. While AlmondNet purports to clarify its allegations
`
`by identifying Lotame’s Spherical Platform as an exemplary Accused Instrumentality in its
`
`Amended Complaint, (D.I. 16 at ¶ 10, 30), it’s definition of Accused Instrumentalities is not so
`
`limited.
`
`AlmondNet’s claim charts exacerbate the problem. As it did in its original Complaint,
`
`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 Accused
`
`Instrumentality. Specifically, AlmondNet mixes features from 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 5–6. As such, for each asserted claim
`
`of the Asserted Patents, AlmondNet has engaged in improper “‘mixing and matching between
`
`different accused products’ in its claim charts.” Geovector Corp., 2017 WL 76950, at *4 (quoting
`
`CAP Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *2). Moreover, with respect to its infringement allegations for
`
`the ’210 patent, while AlmondNet identifies features from five different Lotame products, (D.I.
`
`16-4), notably absent from that list is the sole “exemplary” accused instrumentality from
`
`AlmondNet’s amendment—Lotame’s Spherical Platform.
`
`The problem with AlmondNet’s Amended Complaint is thus much the same as what
`
`Lotame raised in its first motion to dismiss. (D.I. 12.) Despite its amendment, AlmondNet failed
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 569
`
`
`
`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). In its
`
`initial complaint, AlmondNet’s infringement allegations were undecipherable as to any individual
`
`Lotame product, because AlmondNet’s allegations combined features from several products to
`
`make an infringement argument as to a single claim. Now, having tacitly admitted that its original
`
`Complaint was insufficient by filing the Amended Complaint to clarify its allegations, AlmondNet
`
`fails to correct the issue, and indeed, exacerbates it. Where before AlmondNet could not identify
`
`the infringing features of the specifically accused Lotame product without borrowing from other
`
`products, now it cannot identify a specific Lotame product at all, because AlmondNet simply
`
`accuses the broadly defined “Accused Instrumentalities” of infringement.
`
`AlmondNet has thus failed to clearly define what Lotame product it is accusing of
`
`infringement—the Spherical Platform, some combination of Lotame products, or everything. This
`
`pattern repeats across all asserted patents, and the result is worse than before: individual Lotame
`
`products are not specifically accused of infringement, but instead a generic “Accused
`
`Instrumentality” is accused. The products actually identified in the charts cannot support a theory
`
`of infringement without excessive cherry-picking and combining across products. AlmondNet’s
`
`Complaint must be dismissed 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.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 570
`
`
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`Lotame pointed out each of the problems with AlmondNet’s indirect infringement
`
`allegations in its first motion to dismiss, and AlmondNet failed to correct any of them. Lotame
`
`again requests that AlmondNet’s complaint 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.”).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00376-MN Document 21 Filed 08/20/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 571
`
`
`
`2.
`
`AlmondNet’s Indirect Infringement Claims Fail Because AlmondNet
`Does Not Allege Pre-Suit Notice
`
`AlmondNet’s indirect infringement claims also fail because the Amended Complaint lacks
`
`any allegation that Lotame was aware of the ’398, ’210, and ’445 Patents before the filing of this
`
`litigation, and thus fails to provide a plausible factual basis for concluding that Lotame had
`
`engaged in indirect infringement as of the time of filing. Indeed, AlmondNet relied 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
`
`In