Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Ganley (5643)
`Piers R. Tueller (14633)
`HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
`Peccole Professional Park
`10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`Telephone: (702) 385-2500
`Facsimile: (702) 385-2086
`jganley@hutchlegal.com
`ptueller@hutchlegal.com
`
`Edward R. Nelson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Christopher G. Granaghan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`John P. Murphy (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Carder W. Brooks (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`ed@nelbum.com
`chris@nelbum.com
`murphy@nelbum.com
`carder@nelbum.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant R2 Solutions LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT R2 SOLUTIONS LLC’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF
`ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY’S
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT UNDER FRCP
`12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`FACTUAL SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 2
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`I. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER ALLEGIANT’S
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION. ..................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`There Is No Case or Controversy. .............................................................................................. 6
`
`i.
`
`The Court should ignore information included in the Complaint in violation
`of the Agreement..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`ii.
`
`The parties’ pre-Agreement discussions do not establish a case or controversy.. .................. 7
`
`iii. No case or controversy exists even when considering information disclosed in violation
`
`of the Agreement..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`II. EVEN IF THE COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER THE
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, IT SHOULD DECLINE TO DO SO. .............................. 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard .......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`The Court Should Dismiss the Case in its Discretion in Light of the Agreement. ................... 13
`
`III. THERE IS NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER R2 IN NEVADA. .................................. 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`Legal Standard .......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`The Court Does Not Have General Jurisdiction Over R2. ....................................................... 16
`
` R2’s Pre-Agreement Communications with Allegiant Do Not Constitute Minimum
`Contacts with Nevada. .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
` Exercising Personal Jurisdiction Over R2 Would Not Comport with Traditional
`Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice. ........................................................................... 18
`
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
` 673 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Trans Video Elecs. Ltd.,
` 975 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc.,
` 30 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .......................................................................................................... 15, 18
`
`Applera Corp. v. Mich. Diagnostics, LLC,
` 594 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D. Mass. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. United States PTO,
` 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................. 5, 9
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
` 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 16, 17, 18
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
` 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`Baker v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. Cty. of Clark,
` 116 Nev. 527, 999 P.2d 1020 (Nev. 2000) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`Bridgelux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
` U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53137 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2007) ................................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
` 471 U.S. 462 (1985) .......................................................................................................................... 17, 18
`
`Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins,
` 11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................... 4, 7, 9
`
`Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.,
` 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7446 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013) ................................................................... 4, 6, 9
`
`Commc’ns Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC,
` 952 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................................... 13
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
` 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ........................................................................................................................ 16, 17
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Dolby Labs., Inc. v. Intertrust Techs. Corp.,
` 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194022 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019) ........................................................................ 6
`
`Dole Food Co. v. Watts,
` 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Edison v. United States,
` 822 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp.,
` 89 F.3d 807 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................................... 13, 14, 15
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC,
` 587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
` 599 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc.,
` 409 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
` 549 U.S. 118 (2007) .............................................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`Millenium Drilling Co. v. Beverly House-Meyers Revocable Tr.,
` 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124228 (D. Nev. Sep. 17, 2015).................................................................. 15, 16
`
`New World Int’l, Inc. v. Ford Global Techs., LLC,
` 859 F.3d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
` 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
` 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................... 15, 16, 19
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.,
` 480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 6, 7, 8, 17
`
`Google, Inc. v. Traffic Info., LLC,
` 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27017 (D. Or. Feb. 2, 2010) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
` 997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
` 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ............................................................................................................................ 16
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`
`Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,
` 515 U.S. 277 (1995) ................................................................................................................................ 13
`
`Wooster Brush Co. v. Bercom Int’l, LLC,
` 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29971 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2008) ..................................................................... 11
`
`World-Wide Vokswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
` 444 U.S. 286 (1980) ................................................................................................................................ 21
`
`Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics Corp.,
` 914 F. Supp. 1524 (W.D. Tenn. 1995) .............................................................................................. 10, 12
`
`Rules, Regulations and Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 ..................................................................................................................................... 6, 15
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) ...................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Article III of the U.S. Constitution ......................................................................................................... 6, 18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(1).................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(2)................................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.12(f) ....................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`NRS § 14.065 .............................................................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Allegiant Travel Company (“Allegiant”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of
`Non-Infringement (the “Complaint”). The Court lacks both subject-matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit
`and personal jurisdiction over Defendant R2 Solutions, LLC (“R2”). R2 thus brings this motion seeking
`dismissal of the Complaint under FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) (hereinafter, the “Motion”).
`INTRODUCTION
`Allegiant’s Complaint constitutes a blatant breach of a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement that the
`parties signed in November 2021 (the “Agreement”). ECF 1.4. The Agreement prohibits Allegiant from
`using any “Confidential Information” exchanged under the Agreement “for any reason including . . . as a
`basis for a declaratory judgment action.” Id. at ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Not six months after the effective
`date of the Agreement, Allegiant filed the instant lawsuit based entirely on R2’s Confidential
`Information.
`Allegiant’s Complaint misuses R2’s Confidential information in two ways. First, Allegiant’s
`Complaint dedicates numerous paragraphs to detailing the parties’ post-Agreement, back-and-forth
`confidential discussions (which are explicitly defined to be Confidential Information)—including
`detailing the volume, nature, and substance of the parties’ correspondence, discussions, and information
`sharing—all to substantiate Allegiant’s claim that subject-matter and personal jurisdiction are proper in
`this Court. See ECF 1 at ¶ 10; see also id. at ¶¶ 12, 28-32, 38, 42, 44, 48, 50, 54, 56, 60, 62, 66, 68, 72,
`74, 78, and 80. And, second, Allegiant’s substantive counts for declaratory judgment are premised
`entirely on R2’s Confidential Information. Allegiant would have no knowledge of which patents to target
`in the Complaint but for (i) R2’s confidential selection and identification of the patents the parties
`discussed, and (ii) R2’s disclosure of its detailed infringement positions in claim charts shared with
`Allegiant.
`In essence, Allegiant purported to engage in good-faith licensing discussions with R2 by entering
`into the Agreement. But this was not Allegiant’s intent; rather, Allegiant misled R2, collected R2’s
`confidential information, and based its Complaint on the confidential information in breach of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`
`Agreement.1 This was done for the singular purpose of gaining a procedural advantage in an otherwise
`nonexistent conflict.
`As established below, the Court should dismiss this lawsuit for three independent reasons. First,
`the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The only information or material that Allegiant could possibly
`rely upon to demonstrate a case or controversy is Confidential Information subject to the Agreement.
`Such Confidential Information is properly excluded from the Court’s analysis. But even if the Court
`considers the Confidential Information, the very existence of the Agreement—and its express prohibition
`on filing lawsuits based on Confidential Information—eliminates the possibility of a case or controversy.
`Second, even if the Court is able to exercise jurisdiction, it should decline to do so under the Declaratory
`Judgment Act. Exercising jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought in breach of the Agreement runs contrary to
`public policy that encourages resolution of disputes outside of litigation. And declining to dismiss only
`rewards Allegiant for its nefarious conduct. Third, as discussed below, the Court lacks personal
`jurisdiction over R2.
`
`FACTUAL SUMMARY
`R2 was formed in Texas in 2016. Since then, R2 has conducted business activities, substantially
`from Texas, including the management and licensing of its substantial patent portfolio of over 2,500 U.S.
`patents (and 5,000 patents worldwide). Relative to its patent portfolio, both R2 and its predecessor-in-
`interest have negotiated dozens of licenses without the need for litigation. Such is R2’s preferred practice.
`In fact, R2 has never litigated against a potential licensee with whom it has entered into a licensing NDA.
`See Ex. A, Declaration of Craig Yudell (“Yudell Decl.”), ¶ 4.
`In pursuit of its licensing efforts, R2’s President, Craig Yudell, wrote to Allegiant on June 1,
`2021, offering the opportunity to discuss R2’s portfolio. See Ex. B at 10. Thereafter, Evan Woolley,
`another R2 representative, followed up with emails on October 18 and 25, 2021. Id. at 7-8. Allegiant
`responded on October 25, 2021, and, over the course of the next several weeks, the parties negotiated,
`and ultimately executed, the Agreement. See id. at 1-6; ECF 1.4. None of the correspondence between R2
`
`
`1 R2 has filed a breach of contract action in Texas, styled R2 Solutions LLC v. Allegiant Travel Company,
`Case No. 4:22-cv-00537 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2022).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`2
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`
`and Allegiant prior to the Agreement (the “Non-Confidential Correspondence”) discussed specific R2
`patents, Allegiant’s products or services, specific licensing terms, or any other confidential information.
`See Ex. B. Rather, the Non-Confidential Correspondence was limited to R2’s invitation to open licensing
`discussions and the negotiation and execution of the Agreement itself. Id.
`According to the Agreement, R2 and Allegiant “desire[d] to enter into good faith licensing
`negotiations, during which either Party may disclose certain Confidential Information with the other
`Party.” ECF 1.4 at ¶ 1. The Agreement defines these “good faith licensing negotiations” as “the
`Discussions.” Id. The Agreement also broadly defines “Confidential Information” as “any information of
`a confidential nature provided by either Party . . . including but not limited to, the Discussions and that
`which relates to . . . patents, evidence of patent use, [and] . . . claim charts.” Id. at ¶ 2. In order to
`facilitate their negotiations, the parties “agree[d] not to use or disclose any Confidential Information
`provided to it by or obtained by it from the other Party for any reason including its own use, as a basis for
`a declaratory judgment action, inter partes review, or for any purpose except to carry out the
`Discussions.” Id. Indeed, the Agreement provides that “neither the content of these confidential
`Discussions nor the fact that these confidential Discussions occurred may be disclosed to any third
`party.” Id.
`After the Agreement’s execution, R2 and Allegiant proceeded with licensing negotiations
`protected by the Agreement. This included R2’s disclosure of specific patents from its portfolio identified
`by R2 as particularly relevant to Allegiant and its operations; R2’s disclosure of claim charts that R2
`prepared for Allegiant showing how specific Allegiant products and services are covered by those
`specific R2 patents; and numerous email communications and phone conferences in which R2’s patents,
`claim charts, and licensing terms were addressed in depth. On May 24, 2022, not six months after the
`Agreement was signed, Allegiant filed this Complaint seeking declarations that it does not infringe each
`and every patent that R2 identified and discussed during the confidential discussions.
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`3
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER ALLEGIANT’S
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION.
`A. Legal Standard
`“The burden of establishing [subject-matter] jurisdiction in the district court lies with the party
`seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed.
`Cir. 1993). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) may take the form of a “facial” challenge that
`“challenges the court’s subject matter jurisdiction based on the sufficiency of the pleading’s allegations,”
`or a “factual” challenge that “denies or controverts the pleader’s allegations of jurisdiction” (i.e.,
`challenges “the factual basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction”). Id.; see also Edison v. United
`States, 822 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2016). In the case of a “factual” challenge, “the allegations in the
`complaint are not controlling . . . and only uncontroverted factual allegations are accepted as true for
`purposes of the motion.” Cedars-Sinai, 11 F.3d 1573 at 1583. “All other facts underlying the
`controverted jurisdictional allegations are in dispute and are subject to factfinding by the district court,”
`and the district court is to “review evidence extrinsic to the pleadings, including affidavits,” such as those
`attached to motions to dismiss. Id. at 1584; see also Edison, 822 F.3d at 517; Activevideo Networks, Inc.
`v. Trans Video Elecs. Ltd., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1085-86, n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
`Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its
`jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare
`the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
`“The phrase ‘a case of actual controversy’ in the [Declaratory Judgment] Act refers to the types of ‘cases’
`and ‘controversies’ that are justiciable under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” 3M Co. v. Avery
`Dennison Corp., 673 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, “[s]tanding to seek declaratory relief
`[under the Act] requires justiciability under Article III.” Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., No. C-
`12-4411 EMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7446, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013) (citing 3M, 673 F.3d at
`1376; MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007)). “Basically, the question in each
`case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`4
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`
`between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance
`of a declaratory judgment.” MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127 (internal citations omitted).
`Whether “a district court may entertain an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement
`and/or invalidity is governed by Federal Circuit law.” 3M, 673 F.3d at 1377 (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v.
`Centocor, Inc., 409 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (overruled on other grounds)). Under Federal
`Circuit law, a declaratory judgment plaintiff must “establish an injury in fact traceable to the patentee” by
`alleging both “(1) an affirmative act by the patentee related to the enforcement of his patent rights . . . ,
`and (2) meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology
`v. United States PTO, 689 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted) (reversed on
`other grounds). Because Allegiant already implements the products at issue in its Complaint, the Court
`only need consider the first prong of this test. Activevideo Networks, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 1087 (internal
`citations omitted).
`To show “an affirmative act by the patentee related to the enforcement of his patent rights,”
`“more is required than ‘a communication from a patent owner to another party, merely identifying its
`patent and the other party’s product line.’” 3M, 673 F.3d at 1378-79 (citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
`Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “How much more is required is determined on a
`case-by-case analysis.” Id. at 1379.
`Courts consider a number of factors when determining whether the first prong is met, including:
`(1) “the strength of any threatening language in communications between the parties;” (2) “the depth and
`extent of infringement analysis conducted by the patent holder;” (3) “whether the patent holder imposed a
`deadline to respond;” (4) “any prior litigation between the parties;” (5) “the patent holder’s history of
`enforcing the patent at issue;” (6) “whether the patent holder’s threats have induced the alleged infringer
`to change its behavior;” (7) “the number of times the patent holder has contacted the alleged infringer;”
`(8) “whether the patent holder is simply a holding company with no source of income other than
`enforcing patent rights;” (9) “whether the patentee refused to give assurance it will not enforce its
`patent;” (10) “whether the patent holder has identified a specific patent and specific infringing products;”
`(11) “the extent of the patent holder’s familiarity with the product prior to suit;” (12) “the length of time
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`5
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`
`that transpired after the patent holder asserted infringement;” and (13) “whether communications initiated
`by the declaratory judgment plaintiff have the appearance of an attempt to create a controversy in
`anticipation of filing suit.” Activevideo Networks, 975 F. Supp. at 1087-88 (citing Cepheid, 2013 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 7446, at *18-20).
`In addition, courts often place special emphasis on whether a patent owner has proposed a
`confidentiality agreement. The Federal Circuit itself has acknowledged that “[t]o avoid the risk of a
`declaratory judgment action,” patent owners can rely on “a suitable confidentiality agreement” in place
`between the parties. SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372, 1375 n.1 (Fed. Cir.
`2007); see also 3M, 673 F.3d 1372 at n.2. In cases finding subject-matter jurisdiction, courts have
`accordingly highlighted when a patent owner fails to propose a confidentiality agreement. See, e.g.,
`Hewlett-Packard, 587 F.3d at 1363; SanDisk Corp., 480 F.3d at 1375 n.1; Dolby Labs., Inc. v. Intertrust
`Techs. Corp., No. 19-cv-03371-EMC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194022, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019);
`Google, Inc. v. Traffic Info., LLC, No. CV09-642-HU, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27017, at *7-8 (D. Or.
`Feb. 2, 2010).
`B. There Is No Case or Controversy.
`i. The Court should ignore information included in the Complaint in violation
`of the Agreement.
`Allegiant based its Complaint entirely on Confidential Information that it agreed not to use as the
`basis for a declaratory judgment action. The Agreement broadly defines “Confidential Information as
`“any information of a confidential nature provided by either Party . . . including, but not limited to, the
`Discussions and that which relates to . . . products, . . . patents, . . . [and] claim charts.” ECF 1.4 at ¶ 2.
`The “Discussions” are the parties’ “good faith licensing negotiations, during which either Party may
`disclose certain Confidential Information with the other Party.” Id. at ¶ 1. Under the Agreement, neither
`party may use Confidential Information as the basis for a declaratory judgment action, nor may either
`party disclose the content of the Discussions or the fact that they occurred. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.
`Allegiant disclosed and used Confidential Information throughout its Complaint. It relied on the
`existence and content of the Discussions in an attempt to demonstrate that the Court has subject-matter
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`6
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`
`jurisdiction over this case, as well as personal jurisdiction over R2. ECF 1 at ¶¶ 12, 28-32. It also relied
`entirely on the patents and products/services that R2 identified during the Discussions, and the detailed
`claim charts that R2 shared with Allegiant, for determining which patents to make the subject of the
`Complaint and for making its non-infringement assertions. See id. at ¶¶ 38, 42, 44, 48, 50, 54, 56, 60, 62,
`66, 68, 72, 74, 78, 80. Indeed, given the size of R2’s patent portfolio, Allegiant could not have identified
`the patents to include in its Complaint had it not received confidential disclosures from R2—including
`particularly the claim charts—during the parties’ Discussions.
`The Court should exclude all Confidential Information, including all of the negotiations and
`information sharing between the parties after the date of the Agreement, from its jurisdictional analysis.
`In SanDisk, the Federal Circuit specifically recognized that “[t]o avoid the risk of a declaratory judgment
`action,” patent owners can rely on “a suitable confidentiality agreement” in place between the parties.
`SanDisk, 480 F.3d at 1375 n.1. And in 3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., the Federal Circuit remanded
`for the district court to determine whether “conversations were subject to a confidentiality agreement
`precluding their use as a basis to support a declaratory judgment action,” finding “the content of and
`confidentiality of the discussions” as “central to the jurisdictional analysis.” 673 F.3d at 1377-78. The
`Federal Circuit has, thus, recognized that it is improper to consider information subject to a
`confidentiality agreement when determining whether jurisdiction exists. This Court should not consider
`information subject to the Agreement.2
`ii. The parties’ pre-Agreement discussions do not establish a case or controversy.
`The discussions between the parties before the effective date of the Agreement (i.e., the Non-
`Confidential Correspondence)—which is all that the Court should consider here—are insufficient to
`establish a case or controversy.3 Allegiant could not have identified patents to challenge based only on
`the Non-Confidential Correspondence. Those communications were limited to R2’s invitations to open
`
`
`2 R2 does not believe that a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is necessary. To the extent that it is, R2
`requests that the Court consider this sub-section to be a motion to strike immaterial matter from the
`complaint under Rule 12(f).
`3 Because this sub-section relies only on Allegiant’s Complaint, it is a facial challenge to subject-matter
`jurisdiction. Cedars-Sinai, 11 F.3d at 1583.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`7
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 26 Filed 07/14/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`
`discussions regarding a “patent portfolio consisting of over 2,500 patents worldwide” and the negotiation
`of the Agreement. See Ex. B at 1-10. The parties did not identify or discuss any of R2’s patents,
`Allegiant’s implicated products or services, or any licensing terms. See id. If Allegiant could not identify
`patents to challenge, there could be no case or controversy. See, e.g., Bridgelux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. C
`06-6495 PJH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53137, at *24 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2007).
`But even if Allegiant could have somehow selected patent