Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 495
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` Civil Action No. 2:22-CV-49-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PLAINTIFF SPACETIME3D, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`APPLE 1059
`Apple v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`IPR2023-00242
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 496
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ...........................................................2
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Complaint’s Allegations on LG’s Continued Mobile Business After
`the Announcement of Its Exit ..................................................................................4
`
`The Complaint’s Allegations on LG’s Provision of Support,
`Instructions, and Other Information on Infringing Features ....................................4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`SpaceTime Seeks Both Pre-Suit And Post-Suit Damages. ......................................5
`
`LG’s Marking Argument Is Meritless and Premature. ............................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`LG Has Failed to Meet Its Burden of Production to Identify
`Specific Unmarked Products........................................................................6
`
`At Best, Material Factual Disputes Exist on Whether the
`Marking Requirement Even Applies. ..........................................................9
`
`the Complaint Sufficiently Pleads
`the Alternative,
`In
`Compliance with the Marking Statute. ......................................................14
`
`D.
`
`Actual Notice of Infringement Was Unnecessary. ....................................16
`
`III.
`
`The Complaint Sufficient Pleads Post-Suit Willful and Indirect
`Infringement. ..........................................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`LG Ignored SpaceTime’s Offer to Voluntarily Dismiss Its Pre-
`Suit Willful and Indirect Infringement Claims. .........................................16
`
`The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads Post-Suit Willful
`Infringement. ..............................................................................................17
`
`Induced
`The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads Post-Suit
`Infringement. ..............................................................................................18
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 497
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`If the Court Grants Dismissal of Any Claim in Whole or in Part, It
`Should Grant Plaintiff Leave to Amend. ...............................................................22
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 498
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acticon Techs. LLC v. Creative Labs Inc.,
`No. 2:08-cv-194-RSP, 2012 WL 708059 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2012)........................................12
`
`Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter,
`620 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................20
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc.,
`No. W:13-cv-365, 2014 WL 2892285 (W.D. Tex. May 12, 2014) .........................................20
`
`Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-CV-307-MHS-JDL, 2014 WL 10291478 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2014) .........................20
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Muto Tech., Inc.,
`No. A-17-cv-00519-LY, 2018 WL 4999972 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2018) ................................15
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG,
`No. 2:21-cv-00172-JRG, 2022 WL 610796 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2022) ...............................5, 18
`
`Barkan Wireless IP Holdings, L.P. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00034-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 8441751 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2021) .......................12
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................22
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00181-JRG, 2021 WL 6618529 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2021) ...............................18
`
`Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2017) (Dkt. 403) .............................11, 12, 16
`
`BlitzSafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4778699 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) .........................17
`
`CODA Dev. S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
`916 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................22
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:14-cv-752-JRG-JDL, 2015 WL 4910427 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2015) ...........................20
`
`iii
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 499
`
`
`
`
`CoreLogic Info. Sols., Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-132-RSP, 2012 WL 4635994 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2012) ...................................11
`
`Corydoras Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00538-JRG, 2016 WL 9242435 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2016) ...............................22
`
`e-Watch, Inc. v. Avigilon Corp.,
`No. 4:13-cv-00347, 2013 WL 5231521 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2013) (Mot. 12-
`13) ............................................................................................................................................13
`
`In re Elonex Phase II Power Mgmt. Litig.,
`2002 WL 242363, at *2 (D. Del. Feb. 20, 2002) .....................................................................11
`
`Estech Systems, Inc. v. Target Corp.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 6534094, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27,
`2020) ..................................................................................................................................14, 16
`
`Freeny v. Fossil Group, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00049-JRG, 2019 WL 8688587 (E.D. Tex. July 24, 2019)...................................8
`
`Infernal Tech., LLC v. Ubisoft, Inc.,
`No. 5:20-cv-223-D, 2021 WL 4037835 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2021) (Mot. 13-14) ..............13, 14
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Priceline Grp. Inc.,
`271 F. Supp. 3d 667 (D. Del. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.
`v. Booking Holdings Inc., 775 F. App’x 674 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................7
`
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-134, 2015 WL 3513151 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2015) ...........................................20
`
`Johnson v. BOKF Nat’l Ass’n,
`15 F.4th 356 (5th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................................5
`
`In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
`495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................9
`
`KIPB LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00056-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1500062 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2020) .........................17
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-1317-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2684104 (D. Del. June 5, 2018) .....................................7
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, Inc.,
`No. 501-cv-344, 2004 WL 5268123 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2004) ...............................................11
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................5
`
`iv
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 500
`
`
`
`
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`545 U.S. 913 (2005) .................................................................................................................21
`
`Michigan Motor Techs. LLC v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,
`472 F. Supp. 3d 377 (E.D. Mich. 2020) ...................................................................................21
`
`In re Mobile Telecommc’ns Techs., LLC,
`No. 16-MD-02722-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 1053099 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2017) ............................11
`
`Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`408 F. Supp. 3d 819 (E.D. Tex. 2019) .....................................................................2, 18, 19, 21
`
`NXP USA Inc. v. Mediatek Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00318-JRG, 2022 WL 799071 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2022) ............................19, 21
`
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`No. 8:14-cv-01352-JLS-KES, 2019 WL 4390573 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2019) ..........................6
`
`Plano Encryption Techs., LLC v. Alkami Tech., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-1032-JRG, 2017 WL 8727249 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017) .............................2, 17
`
`Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00423-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1362700 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017) .......................17
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp.,
`No. 6:17-cv-00084-JDL, 2018 WL 11364376 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2018) .................1, 7, 14, 15
`
`Script Sec. Sols. L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`170 F. Supp. 3d 928 (E.D. Tex. 2016) .....................................................................................22
`
`SpaceTime v. Samsung,
`No. 2:19-cv-372 (E.D. Tex. 2019) ...........................................................................................12
`
`Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
`832 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Titanide Ventures, LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`No. 4:12-cv-196, 2012 WL 5507327 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2012) .......................................19, 21
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp.,
`No. 9:09-cv-176, 2010 WL 11469880 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2010) ...........................................13
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-366-MHS-JDL, 2013 WL 8482270 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2013) ............................21
`
`Ultravision Techs., LLC v. Govision, LLC,
`No. 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1158606 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2020) .........................17
`
`v
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 501
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 2:16-cv-992-JRG, 2017 WL 3721064 (E.D. Tex. May 15, 2017) ................................2, 21
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .........................................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ...............................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ...........................................................................................................................16
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ...........................................................................................................................22
`
`
`
`vi
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 502
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny LG’s meritless motion (“Mot.”) that overlooks detailed factual
`
`allegations and well-established legal requirements that are inconvenient to its positions. The first
`
`such oversight is of the Complaint’s explicit allegations that LG has continued to infringe the
`
`patents following the announcement of its exit from the mobile phone business. Compl., ¶¶ 38-39
`
`& n.5, 41. Indeed, the Complaint specifically pleaded that LG continues to sell, advertise, and
`
`provide instructions for its infringing products. Id. at ¶ 41. In light of these allegations, LG’s effort
`
`to paint this case as one only about pre-suit damages should be rejected out of hand.
`
`
`
`The second of LG’s oversight with regard to its marking argument is of its own initial
`
`burden under Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017), “to articulate the products it believes are unmarked ‘patented articles’ subject to § 287.”
`
`Id. at 1368. Until the defendant provides Arctic Cat notice, a “Plaintiff should not be forced to
`
`plead compliance with the marking statute for products that are ‘not yet rightly a part of the case.’”
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp., No. 6:17-cv-00084-JDL, 2018 WL 11364376, at *4 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Oct. 16, 2018). LG’s mere identification of SpaceTime3D, Inc.’s (“SpaceTime”) former
`
`litigation settlement agreement with Samsung is patently insufficient to meet its Arctic Cat burden.
`
`
`
`LG’s effort to limit pre-suit damages is meritless also because there exist numerous
`
`material factual disputes on whether the marking requirement even applies to (1) a defunct
`
`SpaceTime website that LG unwittingly acknowledges pre-dates the asserted patents by many
`
`years, Mot. 17 n.4, and (2) Samsung’s products as a result of a litigation settlement agreement.
`
`Even if the Court were to determine that the marking requirement applies, the Complaint
`
`sufficiently pleads SpaceTime’s compliance with the marking statute. At minimum, it is wholly
`
`premature for the Court to limit pre-suit damages based on LG’s marking argument at this juncture.
`
`1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 503
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With regard to LG’s arguments against the willful and induced infringement claims, LG
`
`wastes this Court’s limited judicial resource by arguing that SpaceTime’s pre-suit willful and
`
`induced infringement claims should be dismissed, when SpaceTime already voluntarily agreed to
`
`dismiss those claims without prejudice. See Ex. A. As to the post-suit claims, LG once again
`
`overlooks well-established caselaw from this district that post-suit knowledge is sufficient to plead
`
`post-suit willful and induced infringement claims. See, e.g., Plano Encryption Techs., LLC v.
`
`Alkami Tech., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-1032-JRG, 2017 WL 8727249, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 2:16-cv-992-JRG, 2017 WL 3721064, at *4 (E.D.
`
`Tex. May 15, 2017). LG likewise overlooks detailed allegations in the Complaint of which exact
`
`functionalities of LG’s accused products are at issue and the specific instructions that LG provided
`
`customers to use the infringing functionalities. See Compl., ¶¶ 43-48, 56-74, 81-100, 108-126. Of
`
`course, LG also ignores this Court’s teaching that the intent necessary for an inducement claim
`
`can be found from evidence of “active steps” taken to encourage direct infringement, including
`
`“‘advertising an infringing use,’ ‘instructing how to engage in an infringing use,’ and assisting in
`
`performing an infringing use.” Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corp., 408 F. Supp. 3d 819, 828 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2019).
`
`
`
`The Court should reject LG’s premature attempt to dismiss well-pleaded claims before full
`
`and fair discovery.
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`(1) Whether LG’s argument that this case is solely about pre-suit damages should be
`
`rejected in light of the Complaint’s ample allegations about post-suit damages.
`
`(2) Whether LG’s argument that SpaceTime has failed to plead facts supporting its
`
`compliance with the marking statute should be rejected in light of (i) LG’s failure to meet its
`
`2
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 504
`
`
`
`
`burden under Arctic Cat, (ii) the existence of numerous material factual disputes regarding the
`
`applicability of the marking requirement, and (iii) the Complaint’s specific allegations about
`
`marking and notice were those requirements even applicable.
`
`(3) Whether SpaceTime has sufficiently pleaded its claim for post-suit willful
`
`infringement.
`
`(4) Whether SpaceTime has sufficient pleaded its claim for post-suit induced
`
`infringement.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`SpaceTime is the assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048, 9,304,654, and 9,696,868
`
`(together, the “asserted patents”). The asserted patents are in the same patent family and share a
`
`common parent in the 7,735,018 patent (the “’018 patent”). Eddie Bakhash is the sole inventor of
`
`the asserted patents and the founder of SpaceTime.
`
`The specific graphical user interface configuration disclosed by the asserted patents
`
`provides an efficient way for users to organize and navigate through all open applications on their
`
`computing devices (including smartphones and tablets). Its use of both two-dimensional and three-
`
`dimensional spaces allows users to efficiently interact with and switch between open applications
`
`without compromising screen real estate. The teachings embodied in the asserted patents have now
`
`become ubiquitous technology in smartphones, including LG phones. Indeed, anyone who has
`
`used a smartphone has likely used the technology enabled by the asserted patents when scrolling
`
`through open apps, arranged in a 3D stack of overlapping tabs, to choose one to open. Similarly,
`
`web browsers on smartphones—like the Google Chrome browser which comes preloaded on LG
`
`smartphones and for which LG provides instructions on use—also make use of the technology by
`
`allowing users to quickly scroll through images of all open webpages and select one to open.
`
`3
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 505
`
`
`
`
`On February 10, 2022, SpaceTime filed the Complaint in this case alleging that LG has
`
`infringed and continues to infringe the asserted patents by making, using, offering to sell, selling,
`
`and/or importing into the United States products and systems that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 54, 79, 106.
`
`I.
`
`The Complaint’s Allegations on LG’s Continued Mobile Business After the
`Announcement of Its Exit
`
`The Complaint pleaded that “[e]ven after announcing its anticipated exit from the mobile
`
`business, LG continues to advertise its infringing products on its website and makes available user
`
`guides for its infringing products on its website. LG’s infringing products continue to be available
`
`for purchase at various retailer websites, including but not limited to Amazon and Sears.” Id. at
`
`¶ 41. Quoting from LG’s website, the Complaint further alleged that “[n]otwithstanding its
`
`announced exit from the mobile phone business, LG has stated that its ‘mobile phones will
`
`continue to be available while supplies last’; that it ‘will fully honor [its] product limited
`
`warranties’; and that it ‘will continue to provide software and security updates as well as
`
`replacement parts in accordance with application regulations and contractual obligations.’” Id. at
`
`¶ 39 n.5 (quoting LG, https://www.lg.com/us/notice).
`
`II.
`
`
`
`The Complaint’s Allegations on LG’s Provision of Support, Instructions, and Other
`Information on Infringing Features
`
`The Complaint also contains specific factual allegations about the ways in which LG
`
`directed its end users to use the infringing features of the accused devices. For instance, Paragraph
`
`47 asserts that “LG provides instructions on how users can use the three-dimensional viewer to
`
`access open applications in its user manuals available for download through its website” and
`
`includes a screenshot of and link to the LG K10’s owner manual that contains such instructions on
`
`“us[ing] and switch[ing] between several open applications.” See id. at ¶ 47 & n.7; Fig. 7. The
`
`4
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 506
`
`
`
`
`Complaint further alleges that beyond the user manual of LG K10, “[u]ser manuals of other
`
`Accused Products likewise instruct users on how they can use the three-dimensional viewer to
`
`access and switch between open applications.” Id. at ¶ 48.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 8 requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of [each] claim showing
`
`that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is
`
`a purely procedural question not pertaining to patent law” and is governed by “the law of the
`
`regional circuit.” McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When
`
`considering a motion to dismiss pursued under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “accepts all well-pleaded
`
`facts as true, views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draws all reasonable
`
`inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Johnson v. BOKF Nat’l Ass’n, 15 F.4th 356, 361 (5th Cir.
`
`2021). “In the Fifth Circuit, motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are viewed with disfavor and
`
`are rarely granted.” Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, No. 2:21-cv-00172-JRG,
`
`2022 WL 610796, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2022).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`SpaceTime Seeks Both Pre-Suit And Post-Suit Damages.
`
`As a threshold matter, LG’s motion is premised on the incorrect assertion that this case
`
`involves only pre-suit damages. See Mot. 14. That is a false premise which ignores key allegations
`
`in the Complaint. First of all, while the Complaint recognized LG’s announcement in 2021 that it
`
`would exit the mobile phone business, the Complaint did not acknowledge that LG did in fact exit
`
`that business. See Compl., ¶ 38 (“2021 press release stating that LG would be exiting from the
`
`mobile phone business”); id. at ¶ 39 (“anticipated exit from the mobile business”). Quoting from
`
`LG’s website, the Complaint further alleged that “[n]otwithstanding its announced exit from the
`
`5
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 507
`
`
`
`
`mobile phone business, LG has stated that its ‘mobile phones will continue to be available while
`
`supplies last’; that it ‘will fully honor [its] product limited warranties’; and that it ‘will continue to
`
`provide software and security updates as well as replacement parts in accordance with application
`
`regulations and contractual obligations.’” Id. at ¶ 39 n.5 (quoting https://www.lg.com/us/notice).
`
`The Complaint stated in no uncertain terms that “[e]ven after announcing its anticipated
`
`exit from the mobile business, LG continues to advertise its infringing products on its website and
`
`makes available user guides for its infringing products on its website.” Id. at ¶ 41. The Complaint
`
`further alleged that “LG’s infringing products continue to be available for purchase at various
`
`retailer websites, including but not limited to Amazon and Sears.” Id. at ¶ 41. SpaceTime has
`
`specifically alleged the availability of post-suit damages and actively pursues such damages in
`
`light of the continued sale of LG phones that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`Given this availability of post-suit damages, even if the Court were to rule on the marking
`
`issue in LG’s favor, the Complaint still survives the motion to dismiss.
`
`II.
`
`LG’s Marking Argument Is Meritless and Premature.
`
`A.
`
`LG Has Failed to Meet Its Burden of Production to Identify Specific Unmarked
`Products.
`
`
`
`LG’s marking arguments should be rejected because they overlook LG’s own failure to
`
`meet its initial burden of production. “[A]n alleged infringer who challenges the patentee’s
`
`compliance with § 287 bears an initial burden of production to articulate the products it believes
`
`are unmarked ‘patented articles’ subject to § 287.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational
`
`Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To meet this initial burden, LG “must produce
`
`evidence that the identified products were sold or offered for sale in the United States.” Pavo Sols.
`
`LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-01352-JLS-KES, 2019 WL 4390573, at *2 (C.D.
`
`Cal. June 26, 2019). Only once this initial burden of production is satisfied does the “patentee
`
`6
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 508
`
`
`
`
`bear[] the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Section
`
`287(a).” Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp., No. 6:17-CV-00084-JDL, 2018 WL 11364376, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2018). Where, as here, “the unmarked products alleged by Defendants were
`
`all allegedly sold by third party licensees,” “the alleged infringer bears the initial burden of
`
`production to identify allegedly unmarked products, [and] Plaintiff should not be forced to plead
`
`compliance with the marking statute for products that are ‘not yet rightly a part of the case.’”
`
`Id. at *4 (emphasis added) (quoting Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., No. 17-
`
`cv-1317-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2684104, at *2 (D. Del. June 5, 2018), report and recommendation
`
`adopted, 2018 WL 4629184 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2018)).
`
`This court and sister courts have uniformly denied premature motions to dismiss
`
`complaints for alleged failure to plead compliance with marking requirements where the
`
`defendants themselves failed to meet their initial burden of production. See, e.g., Realtime Data,
`
`2018 WL 11364376, at *4; Lexos Media, 2018 WL 2684104, at *2-3 & n.5 (denying motion to
`
`dismiss where defendant failed to meet initial burden under Arctic Cat and where, even if
`
`defendant had met that burden, plaintiffs’ disagreement that those products actually read on the
`
`patents-in-suit creates a disputed question of fact that cannot be resolved at 12(b)(6) stage); Int’l
`
`Bus. Machines Corp. v. Priceline Grp. Inc., 271 F. Supp. 3d 667, 688 (D. Del. 2017) (holding that
`
`plaintiff “was not required to plead compliance with § 287” where defendants “failed to meet th[e]
`
`burden” to “come forward with particular unmarked products allegedly triggering § 287”), aff’d
`
`sub nom. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Booking Holdings Inc., 775 F. App’x 674 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`
`
`LG flips the Arctic Cat burden, arguing that SpaceTime had previously sued and settled a
`
`case against Samsung and that the “Complaint is devoid of any allegations that the ‘Settlement
`
`Agreement and License Agreement’ included a requirement that Samsung mark its products and
`
`7
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 509
`
`
`
`
`that SpaceTime3D ‘made reasonable efforts to ensure [Samsung’s] compliance with the marking
`
`requirements.’” Mot. 8-9 (citation and capitalization omitted). LG effectively argues that
`
`SpaceTime should have anticipated what LG’s pre-suit damages allegations would have been
`
`based on the Samsung settlement and preemptively rebutted them. But that is entirely backwards
`
`and deprives SpaceTime of the notice and opportunity that Arctic Cat affords: “Without some
`
`notice of what market products [LG] believes required marking, [SpaceTime’s] universe of
`
`products for which it would have to establish compliance would be unbounded.” 876 F.3d at 1368.
`
`
`
`The mere identification of SpaceTime’s settlement agreement with Samsung is woefully
`
`insufficient to meet LG’s Arctic Cat burden. Freeny v. Fossil Group, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00049-
`
`JRG, 2019 WL 8688587 (E.D. Tex. July 24, 2019), is instructive. In that case, the defendant,
`
`Fossil, sought to limit the plaintiffs’, the Freenys’, damages by using against them their admissions
`
`that they had never sold any patented articles, that the license agreements they previously executed
`
`with licensees did not require the licensees to mark any product, and that they have no knowledge
`
`of anyone ever marking a product with the asserted patent. See id. at *1. Notwithstanding these
`
`admissions, the Court held that Fossil could not use “the Freenys’ own allegations in their
`
`complaints and the settlement agreements that the Freenys produced during discovery” to meet
`
`Fossil’s initial burden of production. Id. at *2. Even where the Freenys did not affirmatively seek
`
`discovery on the basis of Fossil’s marking defense, Fossil still had an obligation, under Arctic Cat
`
`and under the Court’s discovery order requiring initial disclosures, to disclose “which accused
`
`products from the Freenys’ prior lawsuits gave rise to non-compliance with § 287(a).” Id. at *3.
`
`Given Fossil’s failure meet its initial production burden, the Court denied its summary judgment
`
`motion to limit the scope of the Freenys’ damages base. So too here. LG’s identification of the
`
`previous SpaceTime-Samsung settlement agreement, without any additional allegations on the
`
`8
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 510
`
`
`
`
`specific unmarked products that LG believes practice the asserted patents, is insufficient to meet
`
`its Arctic Cat burden.
`
`B.
`
`At Best, Material Factual Disputes Exist on Whether the Marking Requirement
`Even Applies.
`
`
`
`Ignoring the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint and its own obligations under Arctic
`
`Cat, LG insists that its motion be granted because SpaceTime failed to mark a website that pre-
`
`dated the issuance of the earliest-issued patent-in-suit by years and because the Complaint does
`
`not include allegations about a requirement that Samsung, as licensee, mark its products. But LG’s
`
`motion lays bare the numerous material factual disputes that preclude a ruling as a matter of law
`
`on whether the marking requirement even applies.
`
`
`
`First, LG asserts that http://www.spacetime3d.com does not identify patent numbers and
`
`thus demonstrates SpaceTime’s failure to mark. This argument is lacking for numerous reasons.
`
`First of all, as LG admits, that website “is not found in the text of the Complaint.” Mot. 10 n.2.
`
`Instead, LG dug up the website from a 2007 review of a SpaceTime beta web browser that is
`
`quoted in the Complaint. Id.; Compl., ¶¶ 36-37. But nowhere in the Complaint is this review
`
`“incorporated by reference,” as LG misleadingly asserts. Mot. 10 n.2. In fact, because the review
`
`was not incorporated in the Complaint and because it is not “central to [SpaceTime’s] claim,” the
`
`review—and the website linked in it—should not be considered part of the pleadings on a motion
`
`to dismiss. See, e.g., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007).
`
`Even if the Court were to take into account the website, it does not demonstrate
`
`SpaceTime’s need or failure to mark. Indeed, nowhere in the Complaint does it allege that the 2007
`
`beta browser reads on the patents-in-suit. LG misrepresents the Complaint when it says that
`
`SpaceTime “tout[ed] having a publicly available browser that included patented technology (Dkt.
`
`No. 1 at ¶ 34).” Mot. 12; see also Mot. 13 (wrongly characterizing the Complaint as having alleged
`
`9
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 17 of 32 PageID #: 511
`
`
`
`
`a browser that “includes patented technology”). Consistent with SpaceTime’s position that it has
`
`not made or sold “patented articles” for the asserted patents, Paragraph 34 actually alleged that
`
`“SpaceTime3D released a public beta version of a browser using its published, patent-pending
`
`technology on June 4, 2007.” Compl., ¶ 34 (emphasis added). Further, the patent to which the
`
`“patent-pending” referred was not one of the three patents-in-suit but their parent patent, the ’018
`
`patent, which is not asserted in the case. Id.; see Mot