`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`
`
` v.
`
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`C.A. No.: 2:22-cv-1776-WSH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, TO TRANSFER, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`Defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash”) respectfully moves this Court for an Order
`
`dismissing this case for improper venue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), or in the alternative,
`
`transferring to Delaware under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, where there can be no dispute that venue is
`
`proper. Further, DoorDash moves this Court for an Order dismissing this case for failure to state a
`
`claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on all counts as the asserted patent is invalid for patent
`
`ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and dismissing the count of willful infringement for failure to
`
`state a claim because DoorDash did not have the requisite pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent
`
`or alleged infringement. DoorDash incorporates herein by reference its Brief in Support of Motion
`
`to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively, to Transfer, and Failure to State a Claim as well
`
`as the Declaration of Kelsey Merrigan and exhibits thereto.
`
`Counsel for DoorDash certifies that DoorDash has informed Plaintiff of this Motion and
`
`Plaintiff has indicated that they oppose the Motion and intend to file a response. Plaintiff filed its
`
`original Complaint on December 9, 2022. (Dkt. 1). The parties conferred via written
`
`correspondence and teleconference pursuant to this Court’s Order at Dkt. 5 and based on the
`
`grounds DoorDash raised, Plaintiff requested leave to amend the Complaint, which the Court
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01776-WSH Document 21 Filed 06/29/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`granted. (Dkts. 12, 13). As a result, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on March 31, 2023.
`
`(Dkt. 14). DoorDash informed Plaintiff via written correspondence that its First Amended
`
`Complaint was still deficient based on improper venue and patent ineligibility grounds. DoorDash
`
`also raised its grounds for failure to state a claim for willful infringement, a count that was asserted
`
`for the first time in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. The parties thereafter conferred via
`
`teleconference to see if Plaintiff could cure these deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint.
`
`However, the parties are now an impasse on the issues raised in this Motion. Therefore, DoorDash,
`
`as the moving party, certifies that it has made good faith efforts to ensure that, if possible, any
`
`pleading defects could be cured prior to filing this Motion. See Dkt. 5.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant DoorDash respectfully requests that his Court grant
`
`Defendant’s Motion and dismiss this case for improper venue, or in the alternative, transfer to the
`
`District of Delaware, or, dismiss this case and Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim for failure to
`
`state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN &
` ARONOFF LLP
`
`/s/ Richard D. Kalson
`Richard D. Kalson
`1330 Avenue of Americas, 23rd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (614) 223-9380
`Facsimile: (412) 417-4209
`RKalson@beneschlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`DoorDash, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01776-WSH Document 21 Filed 06/29/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
`
`United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by using the CM/ECF system.
`
`I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
`
`accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard D. Kalson
`Richard D. Kalson
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
