Case 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`CALDARELLI HEJMANOWSKI & PAGE LLP
`William J. Caldarelli (SBN #149573)
`12340 El Camino Real, Suite 430
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 720-8080
`Facsimile: (858) 720-6680
`wjc@chplawfirm.com
`
`FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
`Michael D. Fabiano (SBN #167058)
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (619) 742-9631
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`OSBORNE LAW LLC
`John W. Osborne (Pro Hac Vice App. Pending)
`33 Habitat Lane
`Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
`Telephone: (914) 714-5936
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`
`WATTS LAW OFFICES
`Ethan M. Watts (SBN #234441)
`12340 El Camino Real, Suite 430
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 509-0808
`Facsimile: (619) 878-5784
`emw@ewattslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FANDANGO, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-01651 JLS-NLS
`[Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`
`
`Complaint Filed: June 29, 2012
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01651 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`FANDANGO EXHIBIT 1068
`
`

`
`Case 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ameranth Has Pled Sufficient Facts to Support its Direct Infringement
`Claim Under the Specificity Requirements of Form 18 .......................................2
`
`Fandango Fabricates a Divided Infringement Issue by Misstating the Law and by
`Improperly and Narrowly Construing the Allegations in the Complaint .............3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Centillion Does Not Apply Because Fandango Did Not and
`Cannot Show That Every Claim of the Patents-in-Suit Can
`Only be Infringed by Divided Infringement .............................................3
`
`Fandango Misstates the Holding From Centillion by Conflating
`“Use” With Physical or Direct Control .....................................................4
`
`Ameranth Alleges That Fandango Itself Uses the Claimed
`Invention ...................................................................................................7
`
`Ameranth Does Not Allege Vicarious Liability .................................................11
`
`Ameranth Sufficiently Pleads Facts to Support its Indirect
`Infringement Claims ...........................................................................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ameranth Pleads Sufficient Facts Plausibly Inferring the
`Predicate Acts of Direct Infringement ....................................................11
`
`Ameranth Pleads Sufficient Facts to Plausibly Infer that
`Fandango Knew of the Patents-in-Suit by Pleading Facts
`Regarding the Wide-Spread Acclaim of its Technology ........................14
`
`Knowledge of Infringement and Intent to Induce Infringement
`May be Plausibly Inferred from Ameranth’s Facts.................................16
`
`Ameranth Alleges No Substantial Non-Infringing Use
`to Sufficiently Support its Contributory Infringement Claim .................16
`
`Ameranth’s Patents Do Not Impermissibly Combine System
`Claims with Method Claims ...............................................................................18
`
`Ameranth Pleads Sufficient Facts to Plausibly Infer that
`Fandango Willfully Infringed the Patents-in-Suit...............................................23
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................24
`
`i
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`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 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`AntiCancer, Inc. v. Fujifilm Med. Sys. U.S.A., Inc.
`745 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ...........................................................................16
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.
`--- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2012 WL 2572037, at *43 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012);
`rev’d on other grounds, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 4820601
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012) ...................................................................................... 13, 20, 21
`
`Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
`377 U.S. 476 (1964) ........................................................................................................11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................. 1, 2, 18
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................... 1, 2, 18, 25
`
`Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta, Inc.
`No. 10-cv-1539-LAB (BGS) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011).................................................................. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
`
`Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA
`No. 05–01940, 2006 WL 1752140, at *6–7 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2006) .........................21
`
`Collegenet, Inc. v. XAP Corp.
`442 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (D.Or. 2006) ................................................................................21
`
`Deston Therapeutics LLC v. Trigen Labs. Inc.
`723 F. Supp. 2d 665 (D. Del. 2010) ................................................................................10
`
`epicRealm, Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc.
`492 F. Supp. 2d 608 (E.D. Tex. 2007) ..............................................................................7
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
`131 S.Ct. 2060 (2011) ................................................................................................ 11, 14
`
`Groupon, Inc. v. MobGob LLC
`No. 10c7456, 2011 WL 2111986, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011) .................................15
`
`In re Bill of Lading Trans. and Proc. Sys. Patent Litig.
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012).................................................... 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`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 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011).................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`In re Seagate Tech., LLC
`497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007).................................................................................. 23, 24
`
`Intellect Wireless Inc. v. Sharp Corp.
`No. 10c6763, 2012 WL 787051, at *11 (N.D. Ill March 9, 2012) .................................15
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
`
`Kara Technology Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.
`No. cv-05-1890, 2008 WL 8089236 *21 (C.D. Cal. April 3, 2008) ...............................21
`
`Lone Star Document Mgmt., LLC v. Atalasoft, Inc.
`No. 11-cv-00319, 2012 WL 4033322 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2012) ..................................13
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)...................................................................................... 2, 7
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................. 18, 20
`
`Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd.
`No.09c948, 2011 WL 665439, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 14, 2011) ....................................24
`
`Prism Techs., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.
`No. 8:10CV220, 2012 WL 3060185, at *8-9 (D. Neb. July 26, 2012) .............................9
`
`Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`No. SACV 11-1681, 2012 WL 1835680, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) ....................16
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011).................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Katun Corp.
`486 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D.N.J. 2007) .................................................................................21
`
`Sienna, LLC v. CVS Corp.
`No. 06–3364, 2007 WL 13102, at *7–8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2007) ...................................21
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Com’n
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010).........................................................................................7
`
`Sony Corp. v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc.
`768 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................... 23, 24
`
`Tech. Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG
`774 F. Supp. 2d 732 (D. Md. 2010) ................................................................................21
`iii
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`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 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Technology Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd.
`No. 2011-1581, 2012 WL 4903197 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2012)..........................................6
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
`No. 03–1035, 2006 WL 1788479, at *2–5 (D. Del. June 28, 2006) ...............................21
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc.
`No. 10c715, 2011 WL 3946581 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2011) .......................................... 14, 16
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011).........................................................................................9
`
`VoiceFill, LLC v. West Interactive Corp.
`No. 8:11-cv-421, 2012 WL 1949378 (D. Neb. May 29, 2012) ........................................8
`
`WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.
`--- F.Supp. 2d ----, 2012 WL 2450801 *11 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2012) ..........................21
`
`Wing Shing Prods. (BVI), Ltd. v. Simatelex Manufactory Co.
`479 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).............................................................................16
`
`Yodlee v. CashEdge
`No. C 05–01550 SI, 2006 WL 3456610, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006) ............... 20, 21
`
`Young v. Lumenis, Inc.
`492 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2007).........................................................................................18
`
`Miscellaneous
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ............................................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. §271 ........................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. §282 ............................................................................................................................18
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) ........................................................................................................................24
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) ........................................................................................................................14
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 84 .............................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`iv
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`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 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In deciding Fandango, Inc.’s (“Fandango”) Motion to Dismiss, the Court is presented
`
`with two straightforward, related issues:
`
`Proper Pleading Standard. Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell
`
`Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), a plaintiff is only required to plead enough
`
`facts so that, when taken as true, the complaint states a claim to relief that is plausible on its
`
`face. Here, Fandango would have the Court find that Ameranth has not pled sufficient facts to
`
`ultimately prove its claims. But at the pleading stage, Ameranth is only required to plead facts
`
`creating a plausible inference that it is entitled to relief.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Plausibility. Fandango’s Motion to Dismiss ignores the well-pleaded facts contained in
`
`11
`
`the Complaint to argue that Ameranth completely fails to plead any facts. In actuality,
`
`12
`
`Ameranth alleges sufficient facts for the Court to draw a plausible inference that Fandango is
`
`13
`
`liable for direct patent infringement, inducing patent infringement, and contributory patent
`
`14
`
`infringement. Fandango’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`The patents asserted in this matter are U.S. Patent Nos.: 6,384,850 (“the ‘850 Patent”);
`
`17
`
`6,871,325 (“the ‘325 Patent”); and 8,146,077 (“the ‘077 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-
`
`18
`
`Suit”). (Compl. ¶ 12; Doc. 1.) Ameranth sued Fandango for direct infringement under 35
`
`19
`
`U.S.C. §271(a), for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), and for contributory
`
`20
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(c). Inducing infringement and contributory infringement
`
`21
`
`are collectively referred as “indirect infringement” throughout this brief.
`
`22
`
`Fandango filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 24, 2012 (Doc. 18), arguing that
`
`23
`
`Ameranth’s Complaint should be dismissed because it supposedly fails to plead sufficient facts
`
`24
`
`to support its direct and indirect infringement claims under the standards set by Iqbal and
`
`25
`
`Twombly. (Mem. P. & A. Sec. III.D-F.; Doc. 18-1.) Fandango further argues that Ameranth’s
`
`26
`
`Complaint fails to allege that Fandango directly infringes the Patents-in-Suit under the Federal
`
`27
`
`Circuit’s holding in Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279
`
`28
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`1
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`

`
`Case 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`Lastly, Fandango also argues that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid as a matter of law
`
`because the independent claims of each patent allegedly combine system claims with at least
`
`one method step. (Mem. P. & A. Sec. III.G.; Doc. 18-1.) Fandango’s arguments are
`
`misapplied, and its Motion should be denied.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Ameranth Has Pled Sufficient Facts to Support its Direct Infringement
`Claim Under the Specificity Requirements of Form 18
`
`In order to sufficiently plead a claim for direct infringement, a patentee’s complaint need
`
`only plead the specificity required by Form 18 in the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Civil Procedure. In re Bill of Lading Trans. and Proc. Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1334
`
`11
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]hether [the patentee’s] complaints adequately plead direct infringement is
`
`12
`
`to be measured by the specificity required by Form 18.”) [hereinafter “Bill of Lading”]. Form
`
`13
`
`18 requires that a complaint for direct infringement contain only:
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1) An allegation of jurisdiction; 2) a statement that the plaintiff owns the patent;
`3) a statement that the defendant has been infringing the patent ‘by making,
`selling, and using [the device] embodying the patent’; 4) a statement that the
`plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement; and 5) a demand for
`an injunction and damages.
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 84
`
`(“The forms in the Appendix suffice under these rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity
`
`that these rules contemplate.”); Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1334 (holding that Iqbal and
`
`Twombly did not create pleading requirements different from those established by Form 18.)
`
`Here, Ameranth has sufficiently pled direct infringement against Fandango in
`
`compliance with the specificity required by Form 18. Ameranth’s Complaint contains
`
`allegations of jurisdiction (Compl. ¶¶ 3-7; Doc. 1), allegations that Ameranth owns the Patents-
`
`in-Suit (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 31, 45; Doc. 1), allegations that Fandango has been directly infringing
`
`the Patents-in-Suit (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 32-33, 46-47; Doc. 1), allegations that Fandango had
`
`notice of its infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 40, 54; Doc. 1), and a demand for an injunction and
`
`damages (Comp. ¶¶ 28, 42, 56; Doc. 1).
`
`2
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`

`
`Case 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Fandango Fabricates a Divided Infringement Issue by Misstating the Law
`and by Improperly and Narrowly Construing the Allegations in the
`Complaint
`
`Fandango, like some of the other Defendants, mistakenly relies on the Centillion case
`
`and asserts that this case presents a divided infringement scenario. Fandango argues that certain
`
`allegations in the Complaint confirm that no single party uses every element of the claimed
`
`inventions because of language referring to third parties interacting with the Fandango System
`
`through, for instance, wireless handheld computing devices, web pages, or third-party
`
`applications. (Mem. P. & A., Sec. III.D.; Doc.18-1.) Due to this alleged divided infringement,
`
`Fandango asserts that it cannot be liable for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`because it does not “use” the claimed invention.
`
`11
`
`Unlike Bill of Lading, Centillion is not a pleading standards case. Centillion arrived at
`
`12
`
`the Federal Circuit following a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement by the district
`
`13
`
`court. Here, the Court’s analysis of the sufficiency of Ameranth’s Complaint should be
`
`14
`
`governed by the Federal Circuit’s holding in Bill of Lading.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1.
`
`Centillion Does Not Apply Because Fandango Did Not and Cannot
`Show That Every Claim of the Patents-in-Suit Can Only be Infringed
`by Divided Infringement
`
`Fandango’s Centillion argument fails because it presumes that all of the claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit cannot be directly infringed. In other words, Centillion only applies at this stage
`
`if Fandango demonstrates that all the claims of the Patents-in-Suit require divided infringement.
`
`Fandango must show that it cannot possibly directly infringe each and every claim of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Fandango has not done that.
`
`Here, Ameranth sufficiently alleges that Fandango “directly infringes and continues to
`
`directly infringe one or more valid and enforceable claims or the [‘850 patent, ‘325 patent, ‘077
`
`patent] . . . .” (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 32, 46; Doc. 1.) This is sufficient to negate Centillion at this stage
`
`because Ameranth is not required to identify which claims it asserts are being infringed at the
`
`pleadings stage. Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1335. Fandango cannot possibly, at this stage,
`
`demonstrate that all of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit could even remotely require divided
`
`infringement.
`
`3
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`

`
`Case 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`To fully appreciate the issue, the Court should consider the following as an example.
`
`The ‘850 Patent has 16 claims. The ‘325 Patent has 15 claims. The ‘077 Patent has 18 claims.
`
`There are 49 claims that may be asserted. Claim 1 in the ‘850 Patent, which is substantially
`
`similar to claim 1 in the ‘325 Patent and claim 1 in the ’077 Patent, was construed by Judge
`
`Charles Everingham of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A true
`
`and correct copy of Judge Everingham’s Memorandum Opinion and Order is attached as
`
`Exhibit A to Ameranth’s Request for Judicial Notice.
`
`Judge Everingham’s construction of claim 1 indisputably does not require a wireless
`
`handheld computing device or any third-party action: “The court construes this term . . . to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`mean ‘application software, which is capable of transmitting to both wireless handheld
`
`11
`
`computing devices and Web pages . . . .’” (RJN, Ex. A at 11) (emphasis added.) This example
`
`12
`
`simply demonstrates that it is plausible that Fandango infringes, at a minimum, claim 1 of each
`
`13
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit without any wireless handheld computing device or third-party action.
`
`14
`
`For Centillion to apply, Fandango must go through all 49 claims and demonstrate why each of
`
`15
`
`those claims can only be infringed through divided infringement. Fandango, of course, has not
`
`16
`
`done this analysis. Centillion simply has no application at this stage and this fact alone is
`
`17
`
`enough to defeat Fandango’s Centillion arguments.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2.
`
`Fandango Misstates the Holding From Centillion by Conflating
`“Use” With Physical or Direct Control
`
`Fandango argues that Ameranth’s direct infringement claims against Fandango must be
`
`dismissed because, “Ameranth’s Complaint . . . requires components of the Fandango system to
`
`be in possession or control of multiple actors, including third parties that are identified in the
`
`Complaint.” 1 (Mem. P. & A. at 8:25-27; Doc. 18-1.)
`
`Fandango’s arguments regarding Centillion are riddled with a misstatement of the
`
`Centillion holding. Fandango conflates the meaning of the word “use” with physical or direct
`
`
`1 The holding in Centillion does not apply to indirect infringement claims. Id. at 1282 (“The district court only
`considered infringement by “use” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).”). See also, Id. at 1286 (“[w]e make no comment on
`whether [defendant] may have induced infringement by a customer.”)
`4
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`

`
`Case 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`control as if physical or direct control is the test for whether Fandango is “using” the claimed
`
`invention. This conflation is apparent in the following arguments:
`
`The factual matter in Ameranth’s Complaint . . . requires components of the
`Fandango system to be in the possession or control of multiple actors, including
`third parties that are identified in the Complaint. (Mem. P. & A. at 8:25-27; Doc.
`18-1) (emphasis added.)
`
`Ameranth admits that Fandango’s alleged direct infringement involves web-
`based applications that are provided and controlled by third parties – not by
`Fandango. (Mem. P. & A. at 9:11-13; Doc. 18-1) (emphasis added.)
`
`Ameranth does not allege that Fandango itself uses or provides [a wireless
`handheld computing device]. (Mem. P. & A. at 10:8-9; Doc. 18-1) (emphasis
`added.)
`
`[T]he only reasonable inference is that the referenced wireless handheld
`computing devices are used and provided by Fandango’s customers, not by
`Fandango itself. (Mem. P. & A. at 10:10-12; Doc. 18-1) (emphasis added.)
`
`Fandango cannot be held liable as a direct infringer when it does not use or
`supply the wireless handheld computing devices. (Mem. P. & A. at 11:26-12:1;
`Doc. 18-1) (emphasis added.)
`
`Fandango’s use of terms such as “possession,” “provide,” “control,” and “supply”
`
`indicates that Fandango incorrectly equates “use” with physical or direct control over individual
`
`elements of the system. The resolution of this issue requires the correct meaning of the word
`
`“use” for purposes of direct infringement under § 271(a). The Federal Circuit in Centillion held
`
`that “use” for purposes of direct infringement under § 271(a) means putting an invention into
`
`service, i.e., controlling the system as a whole and obtaining a benefit from it. 631 F.3d at
`
`1284. The court further held that “use” does not mean physical or direct control of each
`
`element. Id.
`
`In Centillion, the court found that the defendant, Qwest, did not put the patented
`
`invention “into service” because the patent claims at issue in Centillion involved a system that
`
`could only be operated through the activity of an individual remote consumer. Qwest provided
`
`software that had to be downloaded onto a consumer’s personal computer in order to adapt the
`
`computer to perform front-end processing functions necessary to meet the limitations of the
`
`patent-in-suit. Id. at 1281-82, 1287. The court found that the patented invention was not used,
`5
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`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 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`or “put into service,” until a consumer downloaded software, adapted the personal computer for
`
`use, and processed data on that adapted personal computer. Id. at 1287.2
`
`Here, the question is not whether Fandango possesses, provides, controls, or supplies a
`
`wireless handheld computing device, for instance, on which the Fandango System operates by
`
`generating ticket menus and by synchronizing applications and data to such device. That
`
`question addresses only physical or direct control, which the Centillion court rejected as the test
`
`for “use.” Ameranth does not allege, and the cited claims do not require, that Fandango
`
`“exercises physical or direct control” (as phrased by Centillion) over the wireless handheld
`
`computing devices. That a third-party, not Fandango, may exercise physical or direct control
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`over the wireless handheld computing device is immaterial because that it not the correct
`
`11
`
`analysis under Centillion. Rather, the question is whether at this stage, is it plausible that
`
`12
`
`Fandango uses the claimed invention by placing the system “as a whole” into service by, for
`
`13
`
`example, generating ticket menus to wireless handheld computing devices and synchronizing
`
`14
`
`data and applications with such devices. The fact that Fandango does not possess, provide,
`
`15
`
`control, or supply the wireless handheld computing devices itself does not mean that Fandango
`
`16
`
`does not “use” them by generating and transmitting menus to such devices and synchronizing
`
`17
`
`data and applications to such devices.
`
`18
`
`Contrary to Fandango’s implication, not every case involving system claims, software,
`
`19
`
`and third parties involves divided infringement. In a recent Federal Circuit case involving a
`
`20
`
`system for global paging, Technology Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd., No. 2011-1581,
`
`21
`
`2012 WL 4903197 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2012), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s
`
`22
`
`grant of summary judgment of noninfringement because the district court erroneously
`
`23
`
`determined that certain claims required multiple actors. Id. at *11-12. Finding that the
`
`24
`
`pertinent claims required action only by the originating user and did not require multiple actors,
`
`25
`
`the Federal Circuit clearly explained its holding in Centillion:
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2 Ameranth briefed the Centillion issue in its Opposition to Papa John’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No.
`3:12-cv-00729 (pp. 18-24; Doc. 48), and in its Opposition to GrubHub’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No.
`3:12-cv-00739 (pp. 17-21; Doc. 34).
`
`6
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`

`
`Case 3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`[W]e held that “to ‘use’ a system for purposes of infringement, a party must put
`the invention into service, i.e., control the system as a whole and obtain a benefit
`from it.” Importantly, we noted that the user does not necessarily need to “have
`physical control over” all elements of a system in order to “use” a system.
`
`Id. at *12. See also, SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (finding that divided infringement did not exist in case involving GPS-related patents
`
`because relevant claims did not require that any of the specified actions be taken by accused
`
`infringer’s customers or by end users using GPS devices); epicRealm, Licensing, LLC v.
`
`Autoflex Leasing, Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 608 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (holding that the operator of a
`
`website, and not users accessing it on their computers, used the patented method).
`
`3.
`
`Ameranth Alleges That Fandango Itself Uses the Claimed Invention
`
`Fandango goes on to misrepresent the language of Ameranth’s Complaint and asserts
`
`that the Complaint fails to allege that “Fandango deploys or uses all elements of the claimed
`
`system, as required under controlling Federal Circuit precedent.” (Mem. P. & A. at 9:18-22;
`
`Doc. 18-1.) Fandango does not cite this supposed controlling Federal Circuit precedent because
`
`it is actually a misstatement of law: “As we held in McZeal, Form 18 and the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing that each element of an
`
`asserted claim is met. [citation omitted.] Indeed, a plaintiff need not even identify which
`
`claims it asserts are being infringed.” Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1335.
`
`Furthermore, Fandango erroneously focuses on the allegations that merely refer to third-
`
`parties, web-based applications, web pages, and wireless handheld computing devices. The
`
`correct focus, however, is on the allegations that describe how Fandango directly infringes the
`
`Patents-in-Suit by using each element of the Patents-in-Suit. In paragraphs 17-18, 33, and 47,
`
`Ameranth describes the infringing Fandango System in terms such as: “including . . .
`
`integration” with third-party applications (Compl. ¶ 17; Doc. 1), “generating and transmitting
`
`menus . . . to a wireless handheld computing device or a Web page” (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 33, 47; Doc.
`
`1), “enabling ticketing/ticket sales/ticket purchases . . . via iPhone, Android, and other internet
`
`enabled wireless handheld computing devices as well as via Web pages” (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 33, 47;
`
`7
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FANDANGO, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01646 JLS-NLS [Consolidated with 11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS]
`
`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
`