Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1418
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00181-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`BILLJCO, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendants Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks,
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00183-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LLC’s (together, “Defendants”1) Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 21). In the Motion,
`
`Defendants move this Court to dismiss Plaintiff BillJCo LLC’s (“BillJCo” or “Plaintiff”)
`
`Complaint on the grounds that BillJCo’s allegations as to direct infringement, indirect (i.e.,
`
`induced and contributory infringement), and willful infringement fail to state a claim for relief
`
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having considered the Motion, the subsequent
`
`
`1 In the Motion, Defendants inform the Court that the named Defendant Aruba Networks, Inc. no longer exists as it
`was converted from a corporation to a limited liability company prior to the filing of the Complaint in the above-
`captioned matter. (Dkt. No. 21 at 1).
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 1 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 1419
`
`briefing, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be
`
`DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`BillJCo filed this lawsuit against Defendants on May 25, 2021 alleging infringement of
`
`United States Patent Nos. 8,671,804 (the “ʼ804 Patent”), 10,292,011 (the “ʼ011 Patent”), and
`
`10,477,994 (the “ʼ994 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 2). The
`
`Asserted Patents generally relate to Bluetooth Low Energy (“BLE”) beacon technology. (Id. at ¶¶
`
`18–20). BillJCo accuses Aruba 300, 310, 320, and 330 series Access Points, Aruba Beacons,
`
`Aruba USB Beacons, and Aruba Event Beacons (collectively, the “Accused Products” or
`
`“Accused Infringing Instrumentalities”) of infringing the Asserted Patents. (Id. at 27). On August
`
`2, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss BillJCo’s Complaint on the grounds that BillJCo failed to
`
`meet the pleading standards announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
`
`and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include “a short and plain
`
`statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A
`
`Court can dismiss a complaint that fails to meet this standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive
`
`dismissal at the pleading stage, a complaint must state enough facts such that the claim to relief is
`
`plausible on its face. Thompson v. City of Waco, 764 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell
`
`Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff
`
`pleads enough facts to allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
`
`for the misconduct alleged. Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 2 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 1420
`
`accepts well-pleaded facts as true, and views all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
`
`but is not required to accept the plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Id.
`
`In the Fifth Circuit, motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are viewed with disfavor and
`
`are rarely granted. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009); Lowrey v.
`
`Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). “The court may consider ‘the complaint,
`
`any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss
`
`that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.’” Script Sec. Sols. L.L.C. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 928, 935 (E.D. Tex. 2016) (quoting Lone Star Fund V (U.S.)
`
`L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)).
`
`In the context of patent infringement, a complaint must place the alleged infringer on notice
`
`of what activity is being accused of infringement. Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d
`
`1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, the plaintiff is not required to prove its case at the pleading
`
`stage. Id. Assessing the sufficiency of pleadings is a context specific task; simpler technologies
`
`may require less detailed pleadings, while more complex technologies may demand more. Disk
`
`Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`III.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Defendants address BillJCo’s allegations of direct
`
`infringement,
`
`then
`
`indirect
`
`infringement, and finally willful infringement. The Court considers each argument in turn.
`
`A.
`
`The Complaint States a Claim for Direct Infringement
`
`Defendants assert two arguments against BillJCo’s allegations of direct infringement—the
`
`first directed at all Asserted Patents and the second directed at only the ʼ011 Patent. For the reasons
`
`stated below, the Court finds that the Defendants’ Motion should be DENIED with respect to the
`
`Plaintiff’s direct infringement claims.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 3 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 1421
`
`i. Alleged Infringement Based on Standards Compliance
`
`Defendants first argue that BillJCo’s Complaint fails to state a claim for infringement of
`
`all Asserted Patents based on the Accused Products’ compliance with BLE or iBeacon standards.
`
`(Dkt. No. 21 at 5–7). According to Defendants, the Complaint merely “maps various alleged
`
`requirements of industry standards against the elements of the asserted claims, without any citation
`
`to any technical specification, and connects this to the Accused Products” by asserting that the
`
`Accused Products are standard compliant. (Id.) (citing Dkt. No. 1-7, 1-8, 1-9). Defendants argue
`
`that BillJCo was required to “identif[y] [a] common element between the [BLE or iBeacon]
`
`Standard and the asserted claims” or explain how the Accused Products infringe by complying
`
`with the BLE or iBeacon standards, yet BillJCo failed to do so. (Id. at 6–7) (citing Stragent, LLC
`
`v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2017 WL 2821697, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017)). Defendants assert
`
`that “open standards” like BLE and iBeacon have various sections that may be optional, and
`
`BillJCo has failed to “compare the claims to the accused products or, if appropriate, prove that the
`
`accused products implement any relevant optional sections of the standard.” (Id. at 5–6) (citing
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
`
`BillJCo responds that its Complaint does not allege infringement based solely on standards
`
`compliance as contemplated by Fujitsu. (Dkt. No. 24 at 5). Rather, BillJCo argues that the
`
`Complaint directly compares Defendants’ products to the asserted claims and does not merely
`
`assert that Defendants’ products infringe because they comply with a standard. (Id.). For example,
`
`BillJCo relies on Defendants’ own literature and the Accused Products’ emission of a
`
`“ProximityUUID” to meet the ʼ804 Patent’s claim limitation of “identity information for
`
`describing an originator identity associated with the sending data processing system.” (Id.) (citing
`
`Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 40; Dkt. No. 1-7 at 1). Such an allegation is a direct comparison between the
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 4 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 1422
`
`Accused Products and the asserted claims without merely alleging that the products infringe
`
`because they comply with a standard.
`
`BillJCo further responds that dismissal would still be improper even if it were alleging
`
`infringement based solely on standards compliance. (Id. at 9–12). First, BillJCo argues that
`
`Defendants have not identified any “optional” portion of the standards. (Id. at 9). Further, BillJCo
`
`argues that whether portions of the standards are optional is a factual issue inappropriate for
`
`resolution at the 12(b)(6) stage. (Id.). Next, BillJCo asserts that it has gone beyond mere assertion
`
`that Defendants’ products comply with the BLE and iBeacon standards and has identified which
`
`portions of the standards are implemented in the Accused Products. (Dkt. No. 24 at 9–10; Dkt. No.
`
`27 at 6). For example, BillJCo has alleged the Accused Products comply with the iBeacon standard
`
`and implement it by following the “‘iBeacon data’ packet format.” (Dkt. No. 27 at 6; Dkt. No. 1-7
`
`at 4). BillJCo relies not only on the standard but also on Defendants’ own literature that references
`
`“[b]roadcast[ing] data packets.” (Id.). BillJCo notes that Defendants only rely on one motion-to-
`
`dismiss case, Stragent, which is distinguishable because there the plaintiff provided only a vague
`
`assertion that “the patents in suit address [standard compliant] systems” and the relevant standard
`
`had several releases which further increased the ambiguity of the plaintiff’s allegations. (Dkt. No.
`
`24 at 12).
`
`The Court finds that BillJCo assertions of infringement are not limited to the theory that
`
`the Accused Products infringe based solely on standards compliance. Rather, the Complaint makes
`
`direct comparisons between the Accused Products and the asserted claims. For example, the
`
`Complaint draws directly from Defendants’ literature relating to the Accused Products to identify
`
`components that correspond to claim limitations. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 30; Dkt. No. 1-7 at 1,
`
`3, 5–8). Moreover, when addressing the BLE and iBeacon standards, the Complaint goes beyond
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 5 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 1423
`
`asserting that mere compliance necessitates infringement. Instead, the Complaint specifically
`
`identifies which components of the standard are allegedly in the Accused Products and satisfy a
`
`claim limitation. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-7 at 4) (identifying that the Accused Products are standard
`
`compliant, identifying the data packet structure within the standard allegedly utilized by the
`
`product, and identifying the prefix portion of the data packet structure as satisfying the claim
`
`limitation). This case is unlike Stragent where the plaintiff merely asserted infringement because
`
`“the patents in suit address [AUTOSAR-compliant] systems” and the “[accused products]
`
`compl[ied] with the AUTOSAR standard.” 2017 WL 2821697, at *3; see also Case No. 6:16-cv-
`
`00446, Dkt. No. 1. Accordingly, the Court finds that BillJCo’s allegations of direct infringement
`
`amount to more than “threadbare allegations [that] do not put Defendants on notice as to what they
`
`must defend against under Rule 12(b)(6).” Stragent, 2017 WL 2821697, at *5 (citations omitted).
`
`ii. Alleged Divided or Joint Infringement of the ʼ011 Patent
`
`Divided infringement occurs where “more than one actor is involved in practicing the
`
`steps” of an asserted method claim and the “acts of one are attributable to the other. . . .” IBM v.
`
`Booking Holdings, Inc., 775 Fed. App’x 674, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2019). To state a claim for divided or
`
`joint infringement, the plaintiff must “plead[] facts sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that
`
`all steps of the claimed method are performed and either (1) one party exercises the requisite
`
`‘direction or control’ over the others’ performance or (2) the actors form a joint enterprise such
`
`that performance of every step is attributable to the controlling party.” Id.; Lyda v. CBS
`
`Corporation, 838 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff was required to plead joint or divided infringement with
`
`respect to the method of claim 11 of the ʼ011 Patent. (Dkt. No. 21 at 7–10). Defendants assert that
`
`the Complaint fails to identify a single actor who performs all steps of the claimed method of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 6 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 1424
`
`ʼ011 Patent. (Dkt. No. 21 at 8). Rather, Defendants argue that Plaintiff identifies a “combination
`
`of the Defendants, the end user, and other third parties” who perform the accused method. (Id. at
`
`8–9). For example, Defendants assert that the Plaintiff’s claim chart identifies “the user activating
`
`the location based application” and performing other alleged method steps. (Id.) (citing Dkt. No.
`
`1-4 at 449:33–450:15). In Defendants’ view, the Complaint alleges that the claimed method “is
`
`performed by a ‘sending data processing system’ and also by a user of a ‘receiving user carried
`
`mobile data processing system’ who ‘activat[es] the location based application’ which then allows
`
`the ‘location based application’ to ‘invoke[] a location based API…’ and ‘present[] location based
`
`content to the user interface.’” (Dkt. No. 25 at 5; Dkt. No. 1-8 at 7–9). Defendants assert that the
`
`Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff’s allegations necessarily implicate divided
`
`infringement, yet the Complaint never asserts that Defendants control or form a joint enterprise
`
`with the device user or third parties. (Dkt. No. 25 at 7).
`
`Plaintiff first responds that Defendants’ divided infringement argument is premature
`
`because it requires the Court to find that the “sending data processing system” and “receiving user
`
`carried mobile data system” are each performing separate steps of the method claim before any
`
`claim construction rulings have been issued. (Dkt. No. 24 at 13). Plaintiff notes that courts have
`
`declined similar divided infringement arguments at the motion to dismiss stage. See, e.g., In re Bill
`
`of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Pat. Litig., 695 F. Supp. 2d 680, 684 (S.D. Ohio 2010)
`
`(noting that “the issue of whether the method of the patent requires one or more actors is not
`
`properly determined in a Rule 12 context, but is a question for claim construction”).
`
`Second, Plaintiff argues that claim 11 of the ʼ011 Patent recites only a single step and does
`
`not recite any additional steps that must be performed by device users. (Dkt. No. 24 at 14). Plaintiff
`
`asserts that the portion of claim 11 cited by the Defendants merely characterizes the type of
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 7 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 1425
`
`broadcast unidirectional wireless data record that is periodically beaconed under the claimed
`
`method. (Id. at 14–15). In Plaintiff’s view, the “in response to a user activating the location based
`
`application” language and other limitations cited by the Defendants are not used as verbs but
`
`merely characterize the “periodically beaconing” step. (Id. at 16–17).
`
`At the 12(b)(6) stage, the parties have neither completed claim construction discovery nor
`
`briefed claim construction related issues. The Court therefore declines to determine at this juncture
`
`whether asserted method claims require multiple steps or which actors must perform those steps.
`
`See Actus, LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2010 WL 547183, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2010). Further,
`
`even considering the scope of the method claim, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has not
`
`affirmatively alleged that a user or third party must perform a step of the claimed method. The
`
`allegations in the Complaint are consistent with the Plaintiff’s arguments that the claim language
`
`merely characterizes a single method step performed by the Defendants. See Int’l Bus. Machines
`
`Corp. v. Priceline Grp. Inc., 271 F. Supp. 3d 667, 682 (D. Del. 2017) (noting that “certain actions,
`
`though necessary to claim performance, were not required by claims, and therefore, ‘the fact that
`
`other parties perform these actions does not preclude a finding of direct infringement’”) (quoting
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Accordingly, the
`
`Court finds the Defendants’ divided and joint infringement argument unpersuasive.
`
`B.
`
`The Complaint States a Claim for Indirect Infringement
`
`Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s allegations of indirect infringement must be dismissed
`
`because: (1) Plaintiff failed to plead an underlying claim of direct infringement, (2) Plaintiff has
`
`not pled sufficient facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents, (3) Plaintiff has
`
`failed to allege the specific intent required for induced infringement, and (4) Plaintiff has provided
`
`no factual basis for its contributory infringement claims. (Dkt. No. 21 at 10–13). For the reasons
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 8 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 1426
`
`stated below, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s indirect
`
`infringement claims.
`
`The Court notes that Defendants initially rely on their arguments discussed above to assert
`
`that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for direct infringement, and therefore all of Plaintiff’s
`
`indirect infringement allegations must fail. (Dkt. No. 21 at 10; Dkt. No. 25 at 7–8) (citing
`
`Qwickcash, LLC v. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc., 2020 WL 6781566, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Nov.
`
`17, 2020) (“Where a plaintiff has not adequately pleaded an underlying act of direct infringement,
`
`theories of indirect infringement must be dismissed.”)). Having determined that Plaintiff has
`
`adequately pled direct infringement, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
`
`Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has failed to identify any underlying direct infringer
`
`to support claims of induced or contributory infringement against the Defendants. (Dkt. No. 21 at
`
`10–11). Plaintiff responds that it “need not identify a specific direct infringer if it pleads facts
`
`sufficient to allow an inference that at least one direct infringer exists.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 18) (citing
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d at 1336). Additionally,
`
`Plaintiff argues that it has identified “customers, application developers, and third-party
`
`manufacturers—[who] access, use, and develop programs and applications for the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities” and has sufficiently identified how these underlying infringers
`
`directly infringe. (Id.; Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 34). The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently identifies
`
`“customers, application developers, and third-party manufacturers” as direct infringers based on
`
`their access, use, and development of programs for the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities. (Dkt.
`
`No. 1 at ¶ 33–34). The Court proceeds to address the Defendants’ other arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 9 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 1427
`
`i.
`
`Induced Infringement
`
`“Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b). “[L]iability for inducing infringement attaches only if the defendant knew of the
`
`patent and that ‘the induced acts constitute patent infringement.’” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`
`Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1926, 191 L.Ed.2d 883 (2015) (quoting Global–Tech
`
`Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766, 131 S.Ct. 2060, 179 L.Ed.2d 1167 (2011)).
`
`Knowledge of the patent can be show directly or through evidence of willful blindness on the part
`
`of the alleged infringer. See Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corp., 408 F. Supp. 3d 819, 828 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2019).
`
`The intent necessary for a claim of “[i]nducement can be found where there is [e]vidence
`
`of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement.” Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., 914 F.3d 1310,
`
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117,
`
`1129). “These ‘active steps’ can include ‘advertising an infringing use,’ ‘instructing how to engage
`
`in an infringing use,’ and assisting in performing an infringing use.” Motiva Patents LLC, 408 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 828 (quoting Barry, 914 F.3d at 1334 (identifying the Defendants’ employees, who
`
`provided technical support for customers performing the infringing acts, as evidence supporting
`
`induced infringement)).
`
`Defendants first argue that Plaintiff has not plead sufficient facts to show pre-suit
`
`knowledge of the Asserted Patents or that Defendants were willfully blind to any infringement.
`
`(Dkt. No. 21 at 11). Defendants next argue that the Complaint fails to show that Defendants had
`
`“the intent to cause another to directly infringe” because Plaintiff asserted no facts identifying
`
`“how the [Defendants’] instructions direct customers to use products in an infringing manner.” (Id.
`
`at 12) (citing Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. Apple, Inc., 2015 WL 12850550, at *4 (E.D. Tex.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 10 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 1428
`
`July 15, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 4910427 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14,
`
`2015)). Defendants argue that the Complaint merely puts forward “generic allegations that an
`
`alleged infringer provides instructional materials along with the accused products” without more
`
`and is therefore “insufficient to create a reasonable inference of specific intent for the purposes of
`
`an induced infringement claim.” (Id.) (quoting Core Wireless, 2015 WL 12850550, at *5).
`
`Regarding Defendants’ knowledge of the Asserted Patents, Plaintiff argues that “the
`
`knowledge of the filing of a complaint is sufficient to satisfy the knowledge requirement for
`
`indirect infringement. (Dkt. No. 24) (citing Alacritech, Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-693,
`
`2017 WL 4230582, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2017) (following cases which reason that “‘pre-suit’
`
`and ‘post-filing’ indirect infringement claims are not separate for purposes of a motion to
`
`dismiss”). Regarding intent to induce infringement, Plaintiff argues that it has adequately pled
`
`facts that satisfy the low bar required at the pleading stage prior to claim construction. (Id.)
`
`(quoting Lexington Luminance LLC v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 2019 WL 1417440, at *2 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 13, 2019). BillJCo argues that its Complaint goes beyond that in Core Wireless because
`
`BillJCo “has alleged that Defendants’ inducing activities extended beyond mere customers to
`
`include application developers and third-party manufacturers” which Defendants have instructed
`
`to “access, use, and develop programs and applications for the Accused Instrumentalities.” (Id.;
`
`Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 34).
`
`The Court finds that BillJCo has adequately pled a claim for induced infringement.
`
`Regarding Defendants’ knowledge of the Asserted Patents, the Complaint alleges that “Defendants
`
`[were] aware of the Patents-in-Suit, at least as of the filing of this lawsuit, and know or should
`
`have known” that their acts constituted infringement. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 33, 41, 45, 51, 55, 61, 65).
`
`The Complaint therefore provides Defendants the requisite notice of the Asserted Patents to
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 11 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 1429
`
`support a claim of indirect infringement at least as of the time the Complaint was filed. Stragent,
`
`2017 WL 2821697, at *8. The Court finds that it would be premature at this early stage in the
`
`proceedings to distinguish between pre-suit and post-filing conduct for the purposes of induced
`
`infringement when it cannot be disputed that Plaintiff “does sufficiently plead that the
`
`[Defendants] had knowledge of the [Asserted Patents] for at least some time during the
`
`infringement period.”2 Lochner Techs., LLC v. AT Labs Inc., No. 2:11-cv-242, 2012 WL 2595288,
`
`at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2012); see also Alacritech, 2017 WL 4230582, at *2; Estech Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Target Corp., No. 2:20-cv-00123, 2020 WL 6496425, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2020); Ultravision
`
`Techs., LLC v. GoVision, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-100, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32618, at *36 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 20, 2020) (noting that at the 12(b)(6) stage there “is no pre-suit knowledge requirement to
`
`establish induced infringement”) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`Regarding Defendants’ intent to induce infringement, the Court draws all reasonable
`
`inferences from the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiff’s favor and likewise finds that Plaintiff
`
`has pled facts sufficient to state a claim. In this case, BillJCo has alleged that “Defendants take
`
`specific steps
`
`to actively
`
`induce” “customers, application developers, and
`
`third-party
`
`manufacturers” “to access, use, and develop programs and applications for the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 34). Further, BillJCo alleges that Defendants “intentionally
`
`instruct[] infringing use through training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user
`
`guides” and includes hyperlinks to specific examples of the Defendants’ literature that instruct on
`
`the use of the Accused Products as detailed by the Plaintiff’s claim charts. (Id.; see also Dkt. Nos.
`
`
`2 The Court notes that “[d]istrict courts across the country are divided over whether a defendant must have the
`knowledge necessary to sustain claims of indirect and willful infringement before the filing of the lawsuit.” Zapfraud,
`Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, 528 F. Supp. 3d 247, 259 (D. Del. 2021) (collecting cases). In the absence of binding
`authority on either side of the issue, the Court declines to depart from its previous finding that “there is no pre-suit
`knowledge requirement to establish induced infringement” at the pleading stage. Opticurrent, LLC v. Power
`Integrations, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-325, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194970, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016).
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 12 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 1430
`
`1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9). At the 12(b)(6) stage, the Court finds it reasonable to infer the necessary intent
`
`to support a claim of induced infringement from the Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants
`
`simultaneously sell the Accused Products while supplying customers, manufacturers, and
`
`application developers with the cited literature which instructs performance of allegedly infringing
`
`uses of the technology. By pointing to literature “advertising an infringing use” and “instructing
`
`how to engage in an infringing use” and including corresponding claim charts which indicate how
`
`such use of the Accused Products allegedly infringes the Asserted Patents, Plaintiff has sufficiently
`
`stated a claim for induced infringement. See Motiva Patents LLC, 408 F. Supp. 3d at 828 (citations
`
`omitted); Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-cv-00036, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227275, at *8–9
`
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019) (finding a pleading sufficient where it identifies the accused
`
`functionalities and includes citations/screenshots of advertisements and user guides with alleged
`
`descriptions and demonstrations for those accused functionalities).
`
`ii. Contributory Infringement
`
`“Contributory infringement occurs if a party sells or offers to sell, a material or apparatus
`
`for use in practicing a patented process, and that ‘material or apparatus’ is material to practicing
`
`the invention, has no substantial non-infringing uses, and is known by the party ‘to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent.’” In re Bill of Lading, 681
`
`F.3d at 1337 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)). To state a claim for contributory infringement, “a plaintiff
`
`must, among other things, plead facts that allow an inference that the components sold or offered
`
`for sale have no substantial non-infringing use.” Motiva Patents, 408 F. Supp. 3d at 829.
`
`Defendants argue that BillJCo’s Complaint lacks any “factual basis upon which a plausible
`
`inference of contributory infringement can be drawn.” (Dkt. No. 21 at 13) (quoting Core Wireless,
`
`2015 WL 12850550, at *5). According to Defendants, BillJCo’s Complaint and claim charts
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 13 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 1431
`
`provide “no other detail as to the alleged contributory infringement,” and it is “impossible to derive
`
`a plausible inference that the accused hardware/software has no substantial non-infringing uses.”
`
`(Id.)
`
`Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint states a claim for contributory infringement because it
`
`alleges “that Defendants utilize the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities to infringe the Patents-
`
`in-Suit,” demonstrates “how the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities infringe the Patents-in-
`
`Suit,” and alleges the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities do not have a substantial non-infringing
`
`use.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 22). BillJCo asserts that Defendants’ reliance on Core Wireless is misplaced
`
`because there the plaintiff did not identify “(1) the general functionality of the respective patents,
`
`(2) the hardware/software it [accused], or how those components are material and especially
`
`adapted for infringement.” (Id.) (citing 2015 WL 12850550, at *5). BillJCo argues that its
`
`Complaint specifically addresses these topics and thus states a claim of contributory infringement.
`
`(Id.).
`
`The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently states a claim for contributory
`
`infringement. BillJCo specifically identifies the general functionality of the respective patents as
`
`“relat[ing] to specific and particularized inventions for . . . beacon technology and the related
`
`protocols . . . which facilitate and enable aspects of the beacon technology ecosystem.” (Dkt. No.
`
`1 at ¶ 20). Plaintiff alleges that the Asserted Patents disclose “systems and methods for
`
`broadcasting and beaconing related identifiers, applications, and location information for use
`
`within
`
`the beacon ecosystem.”
`
`(Id.). The Complaint also
`
`identifies
`
`the particular
`
`hardware/software it accuses of infringement as “devices that use BLE to broadcast data packets,
`
`in compliance with beacon standards and specifications, to nearby wireless devices.” (Id. at ¶ 23).
`
`The Complaint further identifies the Accused Products by product name and exemplar product
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1011, Page 14 of 16
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al. v. BillJCo, LLC
`IPR2022-00420
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00183-JRG Document 29 Filed 11/30/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 1432
`
`numbers. (Id.). Finally, the Complaint explains that the Accused Products are adapted to
`
`infringement because they are “used to create a communications system where beacons transmit a
`
`series of messages that include data fields arranged in accordance with the BLE protocol and
`
`another device receives such a message and is capable of receiving data, including location data,
`
`contained in the inquiry message.” (Id. at 28). In addition, Plaintiff’s claim charts provide
`
`sufficient allegations to allege that operation of the respective Accused Products occurs in a
`
`manner that is purely adapted to infringement. (See Dkt. Nos. 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9).
`
`Further, BillJCo’s Complaint alleges that “Defendants know portions of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities to be especially made or especial