Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 221
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`NO. 2:17-CV-00140-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO
`REPLEAD THEIR ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`CyWee Group Ltd.’s Motion to Compel mischaracterizes Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) responses to allegations in
`
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and relies on irrelevant case law. Contrary to CyWee’s
`
`assertions, each of Samsung’s responses properly denies all factual allegations contained in the
`
`corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Such an approach indisputably complies with Rule
`
`8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CyWee has not provided a single example of a
`
`court finding otherwise under analogous factual circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
`
`to Compel Defendants to Replead Their Answer to the First Amended Complaint has no legal
`
`basis and must be denied.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Of the 288 paragraphs in CyWee’s First Amended Complaint, 220 contain vague,
`
`conclusory allegations directed to alleged features of accused Samsung products with no
`
`supporting detail. For example, CyWee’s complaint states that “[the accused products] include[]
`
`a processor that is capable of processing data associated with measurement from a 3-axis
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 222
`
`
`accelerometer.” (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39, 56, 90, 107, 124, 141, 158, 175, 192.) It does not
`
`clarify the meaning of “data associated with measurement from a 3-axis accelerometer.” It also
`
`does not identify the component within Samsung’s products alleged to process that data. The
`
`Complaint contains a number of other analogous ambiguous allegations relating to other
`
`components.
`
`Although CyWee argues that Samsung’s responses fail to respond to its allegations, the
`
`plain language of each of the responses shows the exact opposite. Each relevant response is
`
`framed as follows:
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 39 sets forth a legal
`conclusion, no response is required. Samsung denies all remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 39.
`
`(Answer ¶ 39.) The first sentence, regarding legal conclusions, addresses any claim construction
`
`issues within the paragraph. The second sentence addresses any factual basis for the paragraph.
`
`(Id.) Thus, Samsung’s responses unequivocally deny the entirety of each allegation as required
`
`under Rule 8(b).
`
`Indeed, “associated with” is a limitation of claim 10 of asserted U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,441,438 (“the ’438 patent”). (First Am. Compl. ¶ 39.) As another example, paragraph 29 of the
`
`complaint states: “The Samsung Galaxy S6 includes a housing.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 29.)
`
`“Housing” is also a limitation in claim 10 of the ’438 patent. (Brann Decl., Ex. 1 at 20:17.) As
`
`yet another example, paragraph 33 states that the Galaxy S6 “includes a 3-axis accelerometer
`
`attached to a PCB.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) “Attached to a PCB” is also a limitation in claim
`
`10 of the ’438 patent. (Ex. 1 at 20:18.) Therefore, CyWee’s complaint is a thinly-veiled attempt
`
`to bypass the claim construction process and force Samsung to respond to key elements of its
`
`infringement case.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 223
`
`
`II.
`
`SAMSUNG NEED NOT REPLEAD ITS ANSWER TO RESPOND TO LEGAL
`CONCLUSIONS.
`
`CyWee’s complaint prematurely seeks to force Samsung to respond to numerous legal
`
`conclusions, including “housing,” “attached to a PCB,” and “associated with,” among numerous
`
`others. (E.g., First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 39, 33.) Given that these terms are included in claim 10 of
`
`the ’438 patent (Ex. 1 at 20:11, 17, 18), their meaning is a question of law. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388 (1996).
`
`Responses refusing to admit or deny legal conclusions ed not be struck or repleaded. In
`
`Khepera-Bey v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. WDQ–11–1269, 2012 WL 1965444, at *4–
`
`5 (D. Md. May 30, 2012), the defendant responded to legal conclusions in the complaint by
`
`stating that “no response is required” but denied legal conclusions in case they were deemed
`
`factual allegations. Id. at *4–5. The court agreed with the defendant that “[n]o response is
`
`required to legal conclusions in a complaint; a defendant is only required to respond to factual
`
`allegations.” Id. at *5.
`
`Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010), addressed
`
`responses, almost exactly like Samsung’s, that did not admit or deny legal conclusions but
`
`denied all factual allegations on which those conclusions rested. Id. at 1175. The court denied
`
`plaintiff’s motion to deem the allegations in its complaint admitted. Id.
`
`Similarly, in Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., No. 5:10-CV-01189-LHK, 2011
`
`WL 2971046 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2011), the plaintiff moved to strike portions of the defendant’s
`
`answer, which stated that the defendant denied the allegation “[t]o the extent that [corresponding
`
`paragraph of the complaint] contain[ed] factual allegations.” Id. at *2–3. Noting that
`
`“[d]efendants ha[d] denied Plaintiffs’ factual allegations wherever they have declined to respond
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 224
`
`
`to a legal conclusion,” the court denied the motion. Id. at *3. Samsung’s responses are
`
`substantially the same as those in Guifu and therefore are sufficient.
`
`Requiring responses to ambiguous legal conclusions would be premature. Under the
`
`Patent Local Rules, the claim construction process starts with CyWee serving Samsung its
`
`infringement contentions. Patent L.R. 3-1. The infringement contentions must, inter alia, provide
`
`notice of the asserted claims and accused products and identify “specifically where and how each
`
`limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” Id. Only after
`
`CyWee has provided these additional details is Samsung required to propose terms for
`
`construction and its proffered construction of these terms. Patent L.R. 4-1–4-6. Indeed, Patent
`
`L.R. 1-2 requires that motions raising claim construction issues be deferred until after the
`
`completion of claim construction. Therefore, CyWee’s complaint and motion to compel subvert
`
`the claim construction process required by the Patent Local Rules.
`
`III. EVEN IF ALL THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS ARE FACTUAL, SAMSUNG’S
`RESPONSES ARE INDISPUTABLY SUFFICIENT.
`
`While arguing that Defendants must respond to legal conclusions, CyWee asserts that all
`
`allegations corresponding to the disputed responses pertain only to factual issues. (Pl. Mot. at 1,
`
`2, 6.) If CyWee is correct, Samsung need not provide any additional response because Samsung
`
`already denied all factual allegations as required under Rule 8(b). Specifically, Samsung denied
`
`all allegations in the paragraphs other than legal conclusions.
`
`Similar responses have been found to be sufficient. In Genetic Technologies Ltd. v.
`
`Agilent Technologies, Inc., No. CV 12-01616 RS, 2014 WL 3908192 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014),
`
`the defendant included assertions that the complaint included legal conclusions that do not
`
`require a response but denied factual allegations. Id. at *1. The plaintiff complained that it was
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 225
`
`
`not clear which allegations were admitted, but the court disagreed. “There is no undue
`
`uncertainty as to what has been admitted, and what remains to be litigated in this action.” Id.
`
`Here, for those paragraphs that it did not admit, Samsung stated that the paragraph did
`
`not require a response to the extent that it contained a legal conclusion. It then denied the
`
`remaining, factual allegations. This response is sufficient and need not be amended.
`
`IV. NONE OF THE CASES CITED BY CYWEE ADDRESS SITUATIONS IN
`WHICH THE RESPONDING PARTY’S ANSWERS UNAMBIGUOUSLY
`DENIED ALL ALLEGATIONS.
`
`CyWee relies on a number of short excerpts from cases suggesting that a party must
`
`respond to legal contentions. However, notably absent from its motion is any analysis of how
`
`these cases apply to Samsung’s answer.
`
`In fact, some of the cited cases support Samsung’s position. Lane v. Page, 272 F.R.D.
`
`581 (D.N.M. 2011), involved two sets of defendants, both of whom included statements in their
`
`answer that legal conclusions required no response. Id. at 602. The first set of defendants also
`
`included a general denial; the second set did not. Id. The Court found the first set of defendants’
`
`responses sufficient because of the general denial. Id.
`
`Gomez v. United States, No. 09-22148-Civ., 2010 WL 3834211 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28,
`
`2010), also supports Samsung’s position. Id. at *1. Although the court found that responses
`
`simply refusing to respond to legal conclusions were insufficient, it found responses with
`
`“impermissible” language not admitting or denying parts of a paragraph to be sufficient when
`
`they denied the remainder of the paragraph. Id. at *2.
`
`In Farrell v. Pike, 342 F. Supp. 2d 433 (M.D.N.C. 2004), the defendant’s responses
`
`stated that the allegations amounted to legal conclusions for which no answer was required and
`
`denied the allegations in the alternative. Id. at 441. The court declined to strike the defendant’s
`
`responses, noting that “[i]t would not be productive to encourage a pleading motion practice,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 226
`
`
`except for gross or repetitive violations of the rule.” Id. at 442. Therefore, even if CyWee were
`
`correct that legal conclusions must be responded to, which it is not, Samsung’s answer is still
`
`sufficient because of the denial contained at the end of each paragraph.
`
`In the majority of the cited cases, the responses at issue did not address the substance of
`
`the corresponding allegation. Some of these responses simply stated that the legal allegations do
`
`not require a response. For example, in Bruce v. Anthem Insurance Cos., No. 3:15-cv-0353-D,
`
`2015 WL 1860002, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23. 2015), the defendant responded to a paragraph
`
`related to its registered agent for service of process by stating that the paragraph consisted of
`
`“legal conclusions to which no response is required” and nothing further. The court found that
`
`response to be baseless. Id. at *2; see also Thompson v. Ret. Plan for Emps. of S.C. Johnson &
`
`Sons, Inc., Nos. 07-CV-1047, 08-CV-0245, 2008 WL 5377712, at *2 (E.D. Wisc. Dec. 22, 2008)
`
`(responding that defendant’s allegations “contain[ed] legal conclusions[s] to which no response
`
`is required”); Kegerise v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist., No. 1: CV-14-0747, 2016 WL 407348,
`
`at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2016) (responding that “[the allegation] state[ed] a conclusion of law to
`
`which no response is required”). In contrast, here each of Samsung’s responses to CyWee’s legal
`
`averments both notes that the averment contains a legal conclusion and contains a blanket denial.
`
`Two other cited cases do not contain the response’s specific language, but clearly infer
`
`that the responses were akin to those discussed above. In State Farm Mutual Automobile
`
`Insurance Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001), the court remarked that “[a]nother
`
`regular offender is the lawyer who takes it on himself or herself to decline to respond to an
`
`allegation because it ‘states a legal conclusion.’” Id. at 278. Similarly, the court in Nelson v.
`
`Long Lines Ltd., No. C02-4083-MWB, 2003 WL 21356081 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2003), noted
`
`that a “litigant must respond substantively to every averment.” Id. at *6. Unlike Samsung’s
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 227
`
`
`denial of all allegations in its disputed responses, the defendants’ responses in these cases
`
`summarily maintained that the plaintiff’s allegation stated a conclusion of law but provided no
`
`further response.
`
`
`
`In other cases relied upon by CyWee, the responding party’s response was unclear and
`
`evasive. For example, in Do It Best Corp. v. Heinen Hardware, LLC, No. 1:13-CV-69, 2013 WL
`
`3421924 (N.D. Ind. July 8, 2013), the defendants’ responses stated that “[d]efendants deny the
`
`material allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff’s Complaint; the same
`
`calls for a legal conclusion and documents or other items therein speak for themselves.” Id. at *5
`
`(emphasis added). In Clarendon America Insurance Co. v. All Brothers Painting, Inc., No. 6:12-
`
`cv-934-Orl-22DAB, 2013 WL 5921538 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2013), many of the responses
`
`partially addressed some allegations, but then concluded with a denial. Id. at *2–3. The court
`
`found these responses insufficient because they “le[ft] the reader to guess whether [defendant
`
`was] denying the entire paragraph because it disputes all the averments, or because it disagrees
`
`with some part of the paragraph.” Id. at *3. Unlike Samsung’s clear denials, the defendant’s
`
`responses in both of these cases were ambiguous as to what was being denied.
`
`In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Certificate No. IPSI 12559 v.
`
`SSDD, LLC, No. 4:13-CV-193, 2013 WL 6801832, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 23, 2013), the
`
`defendant’s responses stated, inter alia, that “[the corresponding paragraph of the complaint]
`
`call[s] for legal conclusions and, therefore, [defendant] denies same and demands strict proof
`
`thereof.” Id. at *5. The court opined that “[defendant] may not deny an allegation on the basis
`
`that it states a legal conclusion, and must admit or deny the allegation based on its substance.” Id.
`
`Samsung did not deny any of CyWee’s allegations because they are legal conclusions. Instead, it
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 228
`
`
`unambiguously denied the factual basis—i.e., the substance—of these allegations as required by
`
`Rule 8(b).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`CyWee mischaracterizes Samsung’s disputed responses, each of which plainly denies the
`
`corresponding allegation. CyWee also fails to provide any relevant support for its argument; the
`
`cited cases either support Samsung’s position or address situations not analogous to that here.
`
`Therefore, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court deny CyWee’s Motion to Compel
`
`Defendants to Replead Their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`DATED: July 7, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`(650) 320-1900
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 222873
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile:
`(858) 458-3005
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 25 Filed 07/07/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 229
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on July 7, 2017. As of this date, all counsel
`
`of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this document
`
`through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a) (3) (A).
`
`
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`