Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:273
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP., an Illinois
`Corporation,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., et al.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-00799
`
`Judge Joan H. Lefkow
`
`Date: June 24, 2015
`Time: 10:00am
`Courtroom: 2201
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION
`TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0001
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:274
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #2 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 2 of 18 Page|D #2274
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ..l
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS ..........................................................................................................3
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................ ..3
`
`III. ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................................6
`III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ ..6
`
`A. Rosetta’s Direct Infringement Claim Should Be Dismissed.......................................6
`A. Rosetta’s Direct Infringement Claim Should Be Dismissed..................................... ..6
`
`B. Alternatively, This Court Should Order Rosetta to File a New Amended
`B. Alternatively, This Court Should Order Rosetta to File a New Amended
`Complaint With a More Definite Statement of Its Claims. ......................................10
`Complaint With a More Definite Statement of Its Claims. .................................... ..l0
`
`IV. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................10
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... ..l0
`
`i
`i
`
`ROSE'|'|'A-2006
`
`0002
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0002
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:275
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Addiction and Detoxification Inst., LLC v. Aharonov,
`No. 14-cv-10026, 2015 WL 631959 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2015)..............................................5
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009).......................................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Bell Atlantic. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007).......................................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Bender v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. 09-2114, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33075 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2010)...................................6
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs.,
`581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Brooks v. Ross,
`578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Brown v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
`334 Fed. App’x 758 (7th Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................................3
`
`Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Acqua Concepts, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01503, 2014 WL 7178210 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014)..............................................4
`
`Edge Capture LLC v. Barclays Bank PLC,
`No. 09-cv-1521, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009)...................................................................10
`
`Filipek v. Krass,
`576 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N.D. Ill. 2008) .........................................................................................5
`
`Gharb v. Mitsubishi Elec. Automation, Inc.,
`No. 10 C 07204, 2012 WL 1986435 (N.D. Ill. June 4, 2012) ...........................................4, 7, 8
`
`Gradient Enters., Inc. v. Skype Techs. S.A.,
`848 F. Supp. 2d 404 (W.D.N.Y. 2012)......................................................................................4
`
`Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Elektromanufaktur Zangenstein Hanauer GmbH & Co.,
`No. 11-cv-262, 2011 WL 6002967 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 30, 2011).................................................4
`
`ii
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0003
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:276
`
`Ingeniador, LLC v. Interwoven,
`874 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.P.R. 2012)..............................................................................................4
`
`K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc.,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ....................................................................................4, 5, 8
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................3
`
`Mouldtec, Inc. v. Pagter & Partners Int’l B.V.,
`No. 12-4249, 2012 WL 5966593 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2012) ......................................................4
`
`Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Inc.,
`No. 14-894-SLR, slip op. (D. Del. June 4, 2015) ....................................................................10
`
`Orlando Commc’ns LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-1017, 2015 WL 1246500 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2015) ...............................................9
`
`Radiation Stabilization Solutions, Inc. v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-7701, 2012 WL 3757489 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2012) .............................................4, 5
`
`Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V.,
`No. 14-cv-1650, 2014 WL 2795461 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2014)................................................4
`
`Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv., Inc.,
`771 F.2d 194 (7th Cir. 1985) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Rovi Corp. v. Hulu, LLC,
`No. 11-cv-665, 2012 WL 261982 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2012) ........................................................4
`
`In re Smartphone Geolocation Data Application,
`977 F. Supp. 2d 129 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) .......................................................................................8
`
`Swanson v. Citibank, N.A.,
`614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................3, 6
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`539 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ...................................................................................8
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-715, 2011 WL 1706136 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2011)......................................................6
`
`Wolf Run Hollow, LLC v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.,
`No. 12-cv-9449, 2013 WL 6182941 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2013) .............................................4, 7
`
`iii
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0004
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:277
`
`Ziemba v. Incipio Techs., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-5590, 2014 WL 4637006 (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 2014)....................................................4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.....................................................................................................................2, 5, 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)......................................................................................................1, 3, 4, 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ......................................................................................................................10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Form 18 ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 408 .............................................................................................................................7
`
`iv
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0005
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:278
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendants Apple, LG, Motorola Mobility, and Samsung (collectively, “Defendants”)1
`
`move this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims of
`
`direct patent infringement asserted against them by Plaintiff Rosetta-Wireless Corp. (“Rosetta”),
`
`or in the alternative, for a more definite statement concerning Rosetta’s allegations.2
`
`On May 21, 2015, Defendants notified Rosetta that the direct and indirect infringement
`
`claims in its Complaint were deficient, and offered Rosetta an opportunity to amend its
`
`Complaint to provide further factual allegations. In response, on June 1, 2015, Rosetta filed an
`
`Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 82) that did not include the indirect infringement claim.
`
`Rosetta’s direct infringement allegations included in the Amended Complaint, however, are
`
`identical to those included in its original Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Defendants subsequently
`
`informed Rosetta that its direct infringement allegations remained deficient and offered to meet
`
`and confer to discuss the issue. Rosetta declined to meet and confer and has refused to further
`
`amend. As explained below, Rosetta’s Amended Complaint fails to provide Defendants with fair
`
`notice of the claims against them and to state facts sufficient to show a plausible claim for relief
`
`and, accordingly, should be dismissed.
`
`1
`Rosetta’s original complaint (Dkt. No. 1) named as Defendants the following entities: Apple Inc.
`(referred to herein as “Apple”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as “Samsung”); Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility
`LLC (Motorola Mobility is referred to herein as “Motorola”); LG Electronics Co. and LG Electronics
`USA Inc. (referred to herein as “LG”); and High Tech Computer Corp. a/k/a HTC Corp. and HTC
`America Inc. (referred to herein as “HTC”). Rosetta later voluntarily dismissed Motorola, Inc. and
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC from this action (see Dkt. Nos. 9, 37), and these entities
`were not named in Rosetta’s Amended Complaint. It should additionally be noted that several of the
`aforementioned defendants were misnamed. For example, LG Electronics Co. should be LG Electronics,
`Inc.
`2
`Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. join this motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
`12(b)(6) through a separate, concurrently filed motion.
`1
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0006
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:279
`
`Rosetta’s Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants “have infringed directly and
`
`continue to infringe directly” U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 (the “’511 patent”) via “acts [that]
`
`include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale within the United
`
`States or the importation into the United States of products that embody the patented invention,
`
`including the products listed for each Defendant in the attached Exhibit B.” (Dkt. No. 82 ¶ 15.)
`
`Approximately 300 products are listed in Exhibit B. As detailed below, this single conclusory
`
`paragraph in Rosetta’s Amended Complaint falls far short of the pleading standard set forth in
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).3
`
`To state a claim for patent infringement, Rosetta must provide Defendants with fair
`
`notice of the claims against them, and state facts that show a plausible—not speculative—claim
`
`for relief. Rosetta’s complaint fails to meet this standard.
`
`Rosetta’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for direct infringement because it
`
`does not sufficiently notify Defendants as to what functionality in the accused products is
`
`accused of infringement. The approximately 300 products listed in Exhibit B are all
`
`smartphones or tablets, and each has hundreds of different features and a myriad of different
`
`functionalities. As explained in more detail below in Section III.A, Rosetta’s Amended
`
`Complaint never alleges what about these smartphones purportedly infringes one or more of the
`
`claims of the ’511 patent. The ’511 patent contains 80 claims covering multiple different devices
`
`(including a wireless intelligent personal network server (“WIPS”), a wireless telephone, and/or
`
`a display device), and the wide variety of claim elements, combined with Rosetta’s failure to
`
`3
`Defendants have also filed a motion to sever based on Rosetta’s failure to comply with the joinder
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 299 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.
`2
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0007
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:280
`
`identify asserted claims, prohibits Defendants from using the language of the claims to discern
`
`what functionalities are accused. See, e.g., ’511 patent claims 23, 35.
`
`Because Rosetta’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for direct patent
`
`infringement, Defendants respectfully request dismissal of Rosetta’s Amended Complaint.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`In order for a claim for patent infringement to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
`
`the plaintiff must have pled “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,”
`
`so that the right to relief rises “above the speculative level.” Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of
`
`Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). The complaint
`
`must provide facts sufficient “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
`
`misconduct alleged.” Bissessur, 581 F.3d at 602 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
`
`Compliance with the pleading requirements is a purely procedural question, and when
`
`deciding a motion to dismiss in a patent case, district courts apply the law of the regional circuit.
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Seventh Circuit
`
`has interpreted Iqbal and Twombly to mean that to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s
`
`complaint must, through factual allegations, provide the defendant “fair notice of what the claim
`
`is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir.
`
`2010). In evaluating complaints, “courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the
`
`elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581
`
`(7th Cir. 2009); see also Brown v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 334 Fed. App’x 758, 759 (7th Cir.
`
`2009) (“‘Naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement will not do.”) (citation and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted). The Seventh Circuit has also explained that the “plausibility”
`
`requirement of Twombly applies “across the board” to all types of cases. Brooks, 578 F.3d at
`
`581.
`
`3
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0008
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:281
`
`Subsequent to and consistent with the Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombly decisions,
`
`many district courts have evaluated claims for patent infringement by applying the standards set
`
`forth in Iqbal and Twombly.4 Judges in the Northern District of Illinois have also applied Iqbal
`
`and Twombly to measure the sufficiency of patent infringement claims and, in doing so, have
`
`dismissed complaints that—like Rosetta’s—provide insufficient factual detail to permit a
`
`reasonable inference of infringement. E.g., Wolf Run Hollow, LLC v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.,
`
`No. 12-cv-9449, 2013 WL 6182941, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2013) (granting Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion to dismiss claim of direct infringement because given the “anemic foundation of factual
`
`allegations within, the Complaint does not permit a reasonable inference of infringement”);
`
`Gharb v. Mitsubishi Elec. Automation, Inc., No. 10 C 07204, 2012 WL 1986435, at *7-8 (N.D.
`
`Ill. June 4, 2012) (granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion on basis that the patent-in-suit claimed security
`
`systems comprised of, inter alia, programmable logic controller components (“PLCs”) and the
`
`accused products were PLCs not security systems); Mouldtec, Inc. v. Pagter & Partners Int’l
`
`B.V., No. 12-4249, 2012 WL 5966593, at *2-4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2012) (dismissing claims of
`
`inducement and contributory infringement as insufficiently pled); Radiation Stabilization
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc., No. 11-cv-7701, 2012 WL 3757489, at *4 (N.D. Ill.
`
`Aug. 28, 2012) (dismissing claims of indirect infringement as insufficiently pled).
`
`4
`See, e.g., Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Acqua Concepts, Inc., No. 14-cv-01503, 2014 WL 7178210, at
`*2-3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014); Ziemba v. Incipio Techs., Inc., No. 13-cv-5590, 2014 WL 4637006, at *2-
`3 (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 2014); Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., No. 14-cv-1650, 2014 WL 2795461, at
`*2 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2014) (“The principles set forth in Twombly apply to the evaluation of pleadings in
`patent infringement cases in this Circuit.”); Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 803
`(E.D. Va. 2014); Ingeniador, LLC v. Interwoven, 874 F. Supp. 2d 56, 66-67 (D.P.R. 2012) (“This court
`finds the rules established by Twombly and Iqbal clearly require more than a notice pleading for direct
`infringement patent claims, particularly due to the assurance included in Iqbal that the Twombly rule
`applies to all civil cases”); Gradient Enters., Inc. v. Skype Techs. S.A., 848 F. Supp. 2d 404, 407-08
`(W.D.N.Y. 2012); Rovi Corp. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 11-cv-665, 2012 WL 261982, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 27,
`2012); Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. Elektromanufaktur Zangenstein Hanauer GmbH & Co., No. 11-cv-262,
`2011 WL 6002967, at *2-3 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 30, 2011)
`4
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0009
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:282
`
`It should be noted that in a 2012 case, In re Bill of Lading, the Federal Circuit held that
`
`compliance with Form 18 of the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient to
`
`state a claim for direct infringement. 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Form 18, which was
`
`enacted in 1938, requires (1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff owns
`
`the patent; (3) a statement that 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.5
`
`Id. at
`
`1334; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. Form 18 (using “electric motors” as the device). But Bill of
`
`Lading is not binding on this Court, as compliance with the pleading requirements is a matter of
`
`regional circuit law—and the Seventh Circuit has never held that patent infringement complaints
`
`are exempt from the generally-applicable rules of Iqbal and Twombly. See generally Macronix,
`
`4 F. Supp. 3d at 803 (“It is not logical to exempt [patent cases] from the reach of Twombly and
`
`Iqbal”); Filipek v. Krass, 576 F. Supp. 2d 918, 922 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (noting that under Twombly,
`
`more detailed pleading may be required “in cases involving complex litigation, such as antitrust
`
`and patent cases”). And the Federal Circuit itself has held subsequent to Bill of Lading that
`
`“Form 18 in no way relaxes the clear principle of Rule 8, that a potential infringer be placed on
`
`notice of what activity or device is being accused of infringement.” K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v.
`
`Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`5
`Rosetta’s Amended Complaint does not even satisfy each of the elements of Form 18, because
`Rosetta fails to allege, under element (4), that Rosetta gave the Defendants any notice of infringement.
`See Radiation Stabilization, 2012 WL 3757489, at *2 (granting a motion to dismiss in part because it was
`unclear from the complaint whether the plaintiff provided defendant with any notice of infringement);
`Minute Entry at 2-3, ArrivalStar, S.A. v. Channel Logistics, LLC, No. 13-cv-01391 (N.D. Ill. June 25,
`2013), ECF No. 32 (granting motion to dismiss based in part on Plaintiff’s omission from the complaint
`of a statement that it gave Defendant notice of infringement); see also Addiction and Detoxification Inst.,
`LLC v. Aharonov, No. 14-cv-10026, 2015 WL 631959, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2015) (dismissing
`direct infringement claims where Plaintiff’s “complaint fails to claim that it gave Defendants notice of the
`alleged infringement before filing suit.”).
`
`5
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0010
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:283
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Rosetta’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed because its direct infringement claim
`
`set forth therein is deficient under the standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, as construed by the
`
`Supreme Court.
`
`A.
`
`Rosetta’s Direct Infringement Claim Should Be Dismissed
`
`The Seventh Circuit has held that in a complaint, “the plaintiff must give enough details
`
`about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together” and “[a] more complex
`
`case . . . will require more detail, both to give the opposing party notice of what the case is all
`
`about and to show how, in the plaintiff’s mind at least, the dots should be connected.” Swanson,
`
`614 F.3d at 404, 405. Based on this standard, Courts in this district have dismissed claims of
`
`direct infringement. See, e.g., Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., No. 10-cv-715,
`
`2011 WL 1706136, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2011) (dismissing claim of direct infringement that
`
`failed to give defendant “fair notice” of the infringement claim); Bender v. LG Elecs. U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., No. 09-2114, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33075, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2010) (finding
`
`“without identifying specific products or product parts, [the plaintiff] has not put Defendants on
`
`notice as to what products or parts are subject to the infringement claim”). As the Federal
`
`Circuit has explained, to provide fair notice in patent cases, “[t]he adequacy of the facts pled
`
`depends on the breadth and complexity of both the asserted patent and the accused product or
`
`system and on the nature of the defendant’s business activities.” K-Tech, 714 F.3d at 1286
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Here—where Defendants’ technologically-complex smartphones and tablets are at
`
`issue—Rosetta’s conclusory, unspecific direct
`
`infringement allegations fail
`
`to provide
`
`Defendants with any notice of what activity is being accused of infringement. The entirety of
`
`6
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0011
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:284
`
`Rosetta’s direct infringement allegations are contained in Paragraph 15 and Exhibit B. In
`
`Paragraph 15, Rosetta asserts that Defendants infringe the ’511 patent through
`
`the manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale within the United
`States, or the importation into the United States of products that
`embody the patented invention, including the products listed for
`each Defendant in the attached Exhibit B.
`
`(Dkt. No. 82 ¶ 15.) Exhibit B lists nearly 300 models of multifunction smartphones, broken
`
`down by Defendant. (Dkt No. 82, Ex. B.) Rosetta alleges no additional facts supporting its
`
`direct infringement claims.
`
`These bare and conclusory allegations fail to provide Defendants with fair notice of the
`
`claims against which they must defend. The ’511 patent includes 80 claims, many of which are
`
`system claims requiring the presence of multiple devices, including a wireless intelligent
`
`personal network server (“WIPS”), a wireless telephone, and/or a display device. See, e.g., ’511
`
`patent claims 23, 35. Thus, it is unclear whether Rosetta is alleging that the accused
`
`smartphones are equivalent to WIPS, display devices, or entire “wireless data communication
`
`systems” under the claims of the ’511 patent—and notably, while some of the 80 claims of the
`
`’511 patent cover a wireless telephone as part of a larger system, none of the claims is directed to
`
`only a wireless telephone. As a result, Defendants are left to guess at what functionalities are
`
`actually accused of infringement.6
`
`Claims of direct infringement have been dismissed in cases with analogous facts. In Wolf
`
`Run Hollow, 2013 WL 6182941, at *2, this Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint amounted to
`
`6
`Rosetta has provided Defendants with exemplary infringement claim charts under Federal Rule of
`Evidence 408. However, Rosetta’s provision of this claim chart is of no moment to the question before
`the Court, which is whether Rosetta’s Amended Complaint satisfies the pleading requirements of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv., Inc., 771 F.2d 194, 198 (7th Cir.
`1985) (factual allegations outside of the complaint are irrelevant to an analysis of a motion to dismiss).
`Moreover, Defendants are reluctant to rely on Rosetta’s out-of-court, non-binding assertions in preparing
`a responsive pleading, as doing so would put them in an untenable situation. Defendants would be bound
`by their responsive pleading, but Plaintiff would not be bound by its claim chart.
`7
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0012
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:285
`
`(1) a claim of patent ownership; (2) an allegation that Defendants are manufacturing and selling
`
`smartphones; and (3) the assertion of the legal conclusion that infringement must have occurred
`
`in some unspecified manner. The Court granted a motion to dismiss on grounds that “the mere
`
`act of operating a web portal does not permit a ‘reasonable inference’ of infringement of
`
`Plaintiff’s specific patent.” Id. Similarly, in Gharb, this Court concluded that where the patent-
`
`in-suit claimed security systems comprised of, inter alia, programmable logic controller
`
`components (“PLCs”) and the accused products were PLCs not security systems, it was unclear
`
`how the accused products were being accused of infringing the patent-in-suit and thus the
`
`complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements. 2012 WL 1986435, at *3-4.
`
`Rosetta’s pleading deficiencies adversely impact the Defendants’ ability to evaluate and
`
`defend the case and prepare an answer to the Amended Complaint. Rosetta’s failure to specify
`
`what features or functionalities of Defendants’ products are accused of infringement, and what
`
`these features or functionalities purportedly “map to” within the claims of the ’511 patent
`
`(generally), places an undue burden on Defendants, who, in order to provide a complete response
`
`to the Amended Complaint, must sift through the multitude of different claim requirements
`
`which might arguably apply to some of the many listed products. See Taurus IP, LLC v. Ford
`
`Motor Co., 539 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (W.D. Wis. 2008); see also Macronix, 4 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`804 (dismissing complaint with leave to amend and ordering plaintiff to identify asserted
`
`claims). Responding to Rosetta’s Amended Complaint, given its lack of factual detail, would be
`
`especially onerous given the myriad functionalities included in modern smartphones. See In re
`
`Smartphone Geolocation Data Application, 977 F. Supp. 2d 129, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
`
`(“Contemporary smartphones . . . are equipped with a panoply of technologies, allowing users
`
`not only the ability to make and receive audio calls, but also access to the Internet, text messages,
`
`8
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0013
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:286
`
`video calls, email and thousands of software applications. Many of these features are akin to
`
`those formerly associated with a personal computer.”). Additionally, the deficiencies of
`
`Rosetta’s Amended Complaint have made it difficult for Defendants to conduct early prior art
`
`analyses.
`
`A recent case from the Middle District of Florida, in which the court granted a motion to
`
`dismiss direct infringement claims on facts nearly identical to this case, is instructive. In
`
`Orlando Commc’ns LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 14-cv-1017, 2015 WL 1246500 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
`
`16, 2015), Plaintiff accused several Defendants (including some of the same Defendants in this
`
`case) of directly infringing the patent-in-suit through the making, using, and selling of various
`
`models of cellular handsets (i.e., smartphones). Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants’
`
`accused smartphones infringe because they “are programmed, when enabled and ready to
`
`transmit data, to automatically perform each step” of the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit. Id.
`
`at *5. The court dismissed the direct infringement claims for failure to sufficiently put
`
`Defendants on notice of the allegedly-infringing services, systems, and products, because they
`
`did not plead adequate facts in light of the complexity of the asserted patent and the accused
`
`products. Id. at *6-7 (citing K-Tech, 714 F.3d at 1286). Notably, the “very meagre allegations”
`
`pled by Plaintiff in Orlando Commc’ns included substantially more facts than Rosetta’s
`
`Amended Complaint, which merely asserts tautologically that Defendants “directly infringe.”
`
`Here, as in Orlando Commc’ns, Rosetta has broadly alleged that a multitude of
`
`technologically-complex smartphone products infringe based on unspecified functionality. This
`
`is insufficient under the Federal Rules, and does not provide Defendants with fair notice. For all
`
`of the foregoing reasons, Rosetta’s claim of direct infringement should be dismissed under Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`9
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0014
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:287
`
`B.
`
`Alternatively, This Court Should Order Rosetta to File a New Amended
`Complaint With a More Definite Statement of Its Claims.
`
`In the alternative, Defendants respectfully request that, should the Court decide that
`
`dismissal is not warranted, the Court order Rosetta to provide a more definite statement of its
`
`infringement claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). As explained above, Rosetta’s factual
`
`allegations concerning Defendants’ infringement are so vague and ambiguous that Defendants
`
`cannot reasonably prepare an answer and comply with local patent rules. Because Rosetta’s
`
`description of Defendants’ alleged infringing activities lacks specificity, a more definite
`
`statement is warranted. Edge Capture LLC v. Barclays Bank PLC, No. 09-cv-1521, slip op. at 1
`
`(N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009) (denying motion to dismiss but sua sponte ordering plaintiff to file a
`
`more definite statement); see also Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 14-
`
`894-SLR, slip op. at 5-6 (D. Del. June 4, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss without prejudice to
`
`renew if plaintiff failed to amend to provide enough information to satisfy Rule 8).
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons herein, Defendants respectfully request that Rosetta’s Amended
`
`Complaint be dismissed or, in the alternative, that Rosetta be ordered to provide a more definite
`
`statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
`
`10
`
`ROSETTA-2006
`
`0015
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 89 Filed: 06/18/15 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:288
`
`Dated: June 18, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Anish R. Desai__________________
`Stacie R. Hartman (SBN 6237265)
`A. Taylor Corbitt (SBN 6299553)
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
`Chicago, IL 60611
`(312) 258-5607
`(312) 258-5600 FAX
`shartman@schiffhardin.com
`tcorbitt@schiffhardin.com
`
`Brian E. Ferguson (pro hac vice)
`Anish R. Desai (pro hac vice)
`David M. DesRosier (pro hac vice)
`Megan H. Wantland (pro hac vice)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 682-7000
`(202) 857-0940 FAX
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`/s/ Steven Pepe___________________
`Marc A. Cavan (SBN 6255725)
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`191 North Wacker Drive
`32nd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 845-1200
`marc.cavan@ropesgray.com
`
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`6th F