Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 201 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 9544
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00040-JRG
`
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00041-JRG
`
`
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI
`DEVICE USA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 23) (the
`
`“Motion”). In the Motion, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (“Samsung”) request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners,
`
`LLC’s (“Gesture”) Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) for failure to plead a claim on which relief can be
`
`granted.
`
`Also before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion and Stipulation Regarding Certain Claims
`
`and Defenses (Dkt. No. 134) (the “Stipulation”). In the Stipulation, the parties inform the Court
`
`that they have agreed that Gesture will dismiss with prejudice all claims and allegations against
`
`Samsung of indirect infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and willful
`
`infringement. In return, Samsung agrees not to plead or otherwise assert that Gesture’s remaining
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 201 Filed 01/14/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 9545
`
`claims of direct, literal infringement are barred by the doctrines of prosecution history estoppel,
`
`judicial estoppel, laches, patent exhaustion, implied license, or ensnarement. Samsung also agrees
`
`not to plead or otherwise assert that damages, if any, for Gesture’s remaining claims of direct,
`
`literal infringement are limited by 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`Having consider
`
`the Stipulation, and noting
`
`its
`
`joint nature,
`
`the Court
`
`ACKNOWLEDGES and ACCEPTS the Stipulation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that
`
`Gesture’s claims of indirect infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and
`
`willful infringement in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further,
`
`Samsung is BARRED from asserting that Gesture’s claims of direct, literal infringement are
`
`barred by the doctrines of prosecution history estoppel, judicial estoppel, laches, patent exhaustion,
`
`implied license, or ensnarement and from asserting that any damages are limited by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287.
`
`Having considered the Motion, the associated briefing, and for the reasons set forth below,
`
`the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Gesture filed the above-captioned suit against Samsung on February 24, 2021, alleging
`
`infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,194,924 (the “’924 Patent”); 7,933,431 (the “’431 Patent”);
`
`8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”); and 8,553,079 (the “’079 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”). (Case No. 2:21-cv-41, Dkt. No. 1.) Gesture alleged that Samsung’s smartphones and
`
`tablets, including the Samsung Galaxy Note Series, S Series, Z Series, A Series, M Series, Galaxy
`
`Tab S7/7+, S6, S5, and S4 products. Samsung moves to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds
`
`that Gesture had failed to adequately plead infringement of any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 201 Filed 01/14/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 9546
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a complaint if it
`
`“fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Motiva Patents,
`
`LLC v. Sony Corp., 408 F. Supp. 3d 819, 826 (E.D. Tex. 2019). In evaluating a motion to dismiss,
`
`the Court must “accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view the facts in the light
`
`most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. at 827 (citation omitted). The “plaintiff is generally required
`
`to provide ‘only a plausible “short and plain” statement of the plaintiff's claim . . .’” Script Sec.
`
`Sols. L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 928, 936 (E.D. Tex. 2016) (Bryson, J.); see also
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`In the Fifth Circuit, a “motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) ‘is viewed with disfavor and is rarely
`
`granted.’” Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
`
`III.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Samsung argues that Gesture’s Complaint does not provide sufficient detail as to how
`
`the allegedly infringing features meet the limitations of the asserted claims of the four Asserted
`
`Patents. Rather than providing a breakdown of how an exemplary claim from each Asserted
`
`Patent is met by the accused features, Samsung contends that “[t]he only factual evidence GTP
`
`submits [are] four screenshots from Samsung’s website covering only a fraction of the Accused
`
`Features” and “does not allege how these screenshots meet the language of the exemplary
`
`claims, which claim elements the screenshots purportedly satisfy, or which features allegedly
`
`infringe which claims.” (Dkt. No. 23 at 4-5.) Samsung cites Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`
`2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018) for the proposition that a plaintiff’s Complaint must
`
`provide “[an] explanation linking the screenshot(s) to the claim element(s) they purportedly
`
`illustrate[].” (Dkt. No. 23 at 3-4.)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 201 Filed 01/14/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 9547
`
`Gesture responds that Samsung is attempting to impose an improperly high pleading
`
`standard. Gesture argues that Samsung is “asking the Court to require that detailed infringement
`
`contentions be included in the Complaint.” (Dkt. No. 33 at 4.) Gesture further contends that
`
`Samsung concedes that the “Complaint identifies the specific patents, specific exemplary claims,
`
`and the Accused Products, including their features and capabilities.” (Id. at 5.) Regarding
`
`Chapterhouse, Gesture argues that the case is distinguishable because in that case the Complaint
`
`provided only screenshots with no accompanying factual allegations. In contrast, Gesture
`
`contends that its Complaint “details how the accused products infringe each exemplary asserted
`
`claim.” (Dkt. No. 36 at 3.)
`
`The Court agrees with Gesture. Given the relative simplicity of the patents in this case, the
`
`Court is of the opinion that the Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to “provide
`
`[Samsung] fair notice of infringement of the asserted patents.” Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH
`
`Sols., Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Samsung is incorrect that this Court’s opinion
`
`in Chapterhouse created a per se rule that screenshots and accompanying explanatory text are not
`
`sufficient to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in Iqbal and Twombly. In Chapterhouse, the
`
`Complaint asserted “13 independent claims [] cover[ing] the hardware and software involved in
`
`an electronic transaction receipt system that allows digital receipts to be generated from
`
`information electronically read from the product and provides additional purchase opportunities to
`
`customers.” Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00300-JRG, 2018 WL 6981828, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018). The Court specifically contrasted the technology at issue in
`
`Chapterhouse with that in Disc Disease, where the Federal Circuit had approved of a pleading that
`
`did little more than allege that the accused products meet each and every element of at least one
`
`claim. Chapterhouse, 2018 WL 6981828, at *2 (citing Disc Disease, 888 F.3d at 1260). The
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 201 Filed 01/14/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 9548
`
`Court concluded that given the more complex technology at issue, the plaintiff’s use of the
`
`particular screenshots in the Complaint failed to put the defendant on notice of “how the
`
`screenshots meet the text of the exemplary claim.” Chapterhouse, 2018 WL 6981828, at *2.
`
`Here, the technology at issue is closer in complexity to Disc Disease than Chapterhouse.
`
`The claims cover “using mobile phone cameras to assist a user to interact with their smartphone,
`
`including, for example, but not limited to unlocking their phone, taking and using photos or videos,
`
`and providing other functions.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) The screenshots and explanatory text in the
`
`Complaint specifically identify features that plausibly embody such functions. In this context, the
`
`Court concludes that the screenshots provided by the plaintiff, in addition to the explanatory text
`
`in the Complaint, are sufficient to provide Samsung fair notice of infringement of the asserted
`
`patents. For that reason, Samsung’s arguments as to direct infringement fail.
`
`Samsung’s remaining arguments directed towards Gesture’s claims of indirect and willful
`
`infringement are now moot in light of the Stipulation dismissing those claims with prejudice.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 23)
`
`is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of January, 2022.
`
`