Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 146
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`NORTHSTAR SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN AG,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`NORTHSTAR SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00486-JRG (Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00496-JRG (Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`DEFENDANT BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG’s
`MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULES 12(b)(6) AND 12(b)(7)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 147
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION – THE COMPLAINT IS DEFICIENT FOR FAILURE TO
`STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO JOIN A NECESSARY AND
`INDISPENSABLE PARTY.................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`NorthStar Is Attempting to Sue a Germany Company Who Commits No
`Allegedly Infringing Acts in the United States ........................................................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of NorthStar’s Litigation Tactics ............................................... 2
`
`Non-party Entity BMW NA Has Publicly Acknowledged That It
`Performs Allegedly Infringing Activities in the United States ................... 2
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) – The Iqbal/Twombly Pleading Standard as Applied to
`Infringement Allegations Requires More Than Conclusory Statements .................3
`
`Rule 12(b)(7) – Necessary and Indispensable Parties Must Be Joined to a
`Lawsuit .....................................................................................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT - THE COMPLAINT REMAINS UNSERVED, FAILS TO
`PLEAD A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED, AND
`OMITS A NECESSARY PARTY .......................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)—The Complaint Lacks Factual
`Allegations and the Required Specificity, and Thus Fail to Put the
`Defendant on Notice ................................................................................................7
`
`Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)—The Complaint Does Not Plausibly
`Allege Any Acts of Infringement by BMW AG ....................................................16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Direct Infringement: The complaint does not plausibly allege
`performance of the steps of the asserted claims........................................ 16
`
`Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plausibly allege
`elements required for indirect infringement ............................................. 18
`
`C.
`
`Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(7)—NorthStar Failed to Join Related Entity
`BMW NA as a Necessary and Indispensable Party ...............................................20
`
`1.
`
`BMW NA Is a Necessary and Indispensable Party .................................. 20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 148
`
`
`
`2.
`
`BMW NA Is Not Subject to Venue in this District, and the
`Complaint Should Thus Be Dismissed ..................................................... 22
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 149
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Complaint, BMW of North America LLC v. NorthStar Systems LLC, No.
`6:23-cv-00456, Dkt. 1 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 16, 2023)
`Order, Arigna Technology Limited v. Volkswagen AG, et al., No. 2:21-cv-
`00054-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 468 (E.D. Tex. April 28, 2022)
`Order, Arigna Technology Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, 2:21-cv-
`00172-JRG, Dkt. 188 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2022)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 150
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter,
`620 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................19, 20
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................4, 16, 18
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................4
`
`Alarm.com, Inc. v. SecureNet Techs. LLC,
`345 F. Supp. 3d 544 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................19
`
`Arigna Technology Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG,
`No. 2:21-cv-00172-JRG, Dkt. 188 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2022) ...............................................22
`
`Arigna Technology Limited v. Volkswagen AG, et al.,
`No. 2:21-CV-00054-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 468 (E.D. Tex. April 28, 2022) ....................................21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................3, 7
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................3, 7
`
`BMW of North America, LLC v. NorthStar Access Techs. Licensing LLC,
`No. 6:23-cv-00456 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 16, 2023) ..........................................................................3
`
`Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC,
`No. 6:16-cv-446-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 821697 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017) ..........................20
`
`Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..............................................................................................4, 18
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................17
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................18
`
`Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-CV-00300-JRG, 2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018) ........................14, 15
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 151
`
`
`
`Chicky Tackle, LLC v. Vallentine,
`No. 6:18-CV-00063-RWS, 2018 WL 4286186 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2018) ..............................22
`
`Dernick v. Bralorne Res., Ltd.,
`639 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................................21
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................4
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co.,
`400 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................................6, 22
`
`Effectively Illuminated Pathways LLC v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North
`America, Inc.,
`2011 WL 13223466 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2011) ...................................................................7, 14
`
`Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp.,
`754 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1985) ...............................................................................................5, 21
`
`Gay v. AVCO Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`769 F. Supp. 51 (D.P.R. 1991) ...................................................................................................5
`
`GTG Holdings, Inc v. Amvensys Cap. Grp., LLC,
`No. 3:13-cv-3107-M, 2015 WL 4634557 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2015) ................................21, 22
`
`H.S. Res., Inc. v. Wingate,
`327 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................5, 6, 21
`
`I4i Ltd. P’ship. V. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff’d, 564 U.S. 91 (2011) .......................................................17
`
`In re Volkswagen Grp. Of Am., Inc.,
`28 F.4th 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................22
`
`Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2014 WL 2757541 (E.D. Tex. June 17, 2014) ...................................................................20, 22
`
`K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................14
`
`Landmark Tech. LLC v. Aeropostale,
`2010 WL 5174954 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 29, 2010) ...................................................................14, 15
`
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................14
`
`Lopez v. Shearson Am. Express, Inc.,
`684 F. Supp. 1144 (D.P.R. 1988) ...........................................................................................5, 6
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 152
`
`
`
`Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.,
`565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................16
`
`MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.,
`420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................4
`
`Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. City of Memphis, Tenn.,
`570 F.3d 625 (5th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................5
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................17
`
`Polanco v. H.B. Fuller Co.,
`941 F. Supp. 1512 (D. Minn. 1996) .......................................................................................5, 6
`
`Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer,
`784 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1986) ...............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley,
`721 F.Supp.2d 538 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 10, 2010) ...................................................................14, 15
`
`Round Rock Research, LLC v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 4:11-CV-332, 2011 WL 11761563 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2011) .........................................17
`
`SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 10-389-LPS, 2012 WL 3061027 (D. Del. July 26, 2012) .................................................19
`
`Tick v. Cohen,
`787 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1986) ...........................................................................................6, 22
`
`Timberlake v. Synthes Spine, Inc.,
`2011 WL 2607044 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 30, 2011) ........................................................................5, 6
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C § 271 ...............................................................................................................................20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) .....................................................................................................................4, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .....................................................................................................................4, 19
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)......................................................................................................2, 5, 6, 20
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 153
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 .............................................................................................................5, 6, 20, 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) ..................................................................................................................5, 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) ........................................................................................................................6
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 154
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO
`LOCAL RULE 7(a)(1)
`
`
`
`1) Whether the Court should dismiss this patent case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`12(b)(6) because Plaintiff NorthStar Systems LLC’s Complaint fails to allege facts or details
`supporting any theory of infringement for the majority of the claim terms of every Asserted
`Patent.
`
`2) Whether NorthStar’s complaint against BMW AG should be dismissed pursuant to Rule
`12(b)(6) because NorthStar has failed to sufficiently state a claim of direct infringement and
`indirect infringement against BMW AG.
`
`3) Whether the Court should dismiss this patent case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`12(b)(7) because Plaintiff NorthStar Access Technologies Licensing, LLC failed to join party
`BMW NA, who primarily sells and services the allegedly infringing products and services in
`the United States and is made a necessary and indispensable party based on Plaintiff NorthStar
`Systems LLC’s direct and indirect infringement allegations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 155
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION – THE COMPLAINT IS DEFICIENT FOR FAILURE TO
`STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO JOIN A NECESSARY AND
`INDISPENSABLE PARTY
`
`Plaintiff NorthStar Systems LLC (“NorthStar”) Complaint improperly brought its patent
`
`infringement allegation against Defendant Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMW AG”), a
`
`German company, by cherry picking this forum rather than pleading an appropriate case in an
`
`appropriate jurisdiction. NorthStar’s allegations are fatally flawed for two distinct reasons.
`
`First, NorthStar’s Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because NorthStar
`
`cannot state a claim for which relief can be granted because it broadly accuses “navigation
`
`systems” and merely parrots the claim language to allege infringement for every claim term for
`
`every Asserted Patent. Indeed, for each of the dozens of claim terms across each claim of the five
`
`Asserted Patents NorthStar alleges are infringed, NorthStar provides no factual allegations at all.
`
`Accordingly, NorthStar does not satisfy even the bare minimum pleading requirement.
`
`Second, NorthStar’s Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it fails
`
`to plead facts sufficient to plausibly suggest that BMW AG, the only accused party in this case,
`
`directly or indirectly infringes NorthStar’s patents. Despite all claims (asserted or not) of the
`
`Asserted Patents being method claims, NorthStar fails to allege any facts supporting allegations of
`
`any entity performing any steps of the asserted claims or any acts of inducement. BMW AG does
`
`not make or sell products in the United States, and NorthStar provides no facts supporting
`
`allegations it does, further supporting that NorthStar’s suit is an effort to cherry pick this forum
`
`rather than to resolve the dispute.
`
`Third, NorthStar failed to join necessary and indispensable party BMW of North America,
`
`LLC (“BMW NA”), a related entity of Defendant who has acknowledged in a declaratory
`
`judgment action filed against NorthStar that it primarily performs the allegedly infringing acts, to
`
`the extent those acts are performed in the United States. NorthStar’s Complaint accuses products
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 156
`
`
`
`and services provided by BMW NA, necessarily making BMW NA an indispensable party in this
`
`action. However, this Court has already found that BMW NA is not subject to venue in this District,
`
`so it cannot be added as a party here. NorthStar’s omission of BMW NA from this action (strategic
`
`or otherwise) does not make BMW NA any less necessary.
`
`Thus, NorthStar’s allegations fail to sufficiently plead facts to survive a motion to dismiss
`
`under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
`
`failure to join a necessary and indispensable party, respectively.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`NorthStar Is Attempting to Sue a Germany Company Who Commits
`No Allegedly Infringing Acts in the United States
`
`1.
`
`Overview of NorthStar’s Litigation Tactics
`
`BMW AG offered the first satellite navigation phone in a car in 1994 in a BMW 7 Series
`
`E38,1 well before the Asserted Patents.
`
`In 2005, more than fifteen years after BMW AG first included satellite navigation
`
`technology in a car, the first of the Asserted patents, the ’432 patent allegedly issued. Complaint,
`
`¶ 7. NorthStar then filed this lawsuit on December 27, 2022, against an incorrect Defendant.
`
`2.
`
`Non-party Entity BMW NA Has Publicly Acknowledged That
`It Performs Allegedly Infringing Activities in the United States
`
`NorthStar’s allegations directly implicate the sale and service of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities in the United States, so BMW NA, who performs the allegedly infringing actions
`
`
`
`1
`publication
`third-party
`a
`to
`citation
`own
` Plaintiff’s
`https://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/11/bmw-adds-idrive-touch-and-3d-maps-to-latest-
`generation-
`infotainm/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_refe
`rrer_sig=AQAAAA15pupDNqpz4sOYj-
`irRKcVYwZ4FkEe0oyP6a_8ITfBHPiHcgEFR30pq40PZ9u3scHguJZYdXoFFuj-
`BuLvwmZzedlU2vqYqErILfOAtp--RxmPFIi1rZkhQq0XrPE-
`tfJ2GUz3hUEHvEQ0PtB4KB9HVpkCzaWFf9f5t8krt1Po.
`
`agrees.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 157
`
`
`
`but was omitted from the instant action, filed a declaratory judgment action against NorthStar on
`
`June 16, in the Western District of Texas. In the Complaint, BMW NA acknowledged that to the
`
`extent that any of the allegedly infringing acts are performed in the United States, it primarily
`
`performs those acts. NorthStar’s patent infringement allegations in this action thus necessarily
`
`implicate BMW NA. See Dkt. 1, Complaint, BMW of North America, LLC v. NorthStar Access
`
`Techs. Licensing LLC, No. 6:23-cv-00456 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 16, 2023) ¶¶ 15, 21 (Ex. 1). In sum,
`
`BMW NA has publicly acknowledged that to the extent that the allegedly infringing acts are
`
`performed in the United States, BMW NA primarily performs the acts, but that it does not infringe
`
`NorthStar’s patents.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) – The Iqbal/Twombly Pleading Standard as Applied to
`Infringement Allegations Requires More Than Conclusory Statements
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain “enough
`
`facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`
`544, 570 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
`
`conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). This “plausibility” standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility
`
`that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely
`
`consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and
`
`plausibility’ of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
`
`The complaint must contain enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation
`
`that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiff’s claim. Lormand v. US
`
`Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 255–57 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, if a patent-infringement
`
`complaint contains “factual allegations [that] are actually inconsistent with and contradict
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 158
`
`
`
`infringement,” the complaint fails “to state a plausible claim.” Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`
`4 F.4th 1342, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`“Direct infringement under § 271(a) occurs where all steps of a claimed method are
`
`performed by or attributable to a single entity.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`
`797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Akamai II”). “Where more than one actor is involved in
`
`practicing the steps, a court must determine whether the acts of one are attributable to the other
`
`such that a single entity is responsible for the infringement.” Id. An entity is responsible for others’
`
`“performance of method steps in two sets of circumstances: (1) where that entity directs or controls
`
`others’ performance, and (2) where the actors form a joint enterprise.” Id.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be
`
`liable as an infringer.” To state a claim for induced infringement, the plaintiff must plausibly allege
`
`(1) that a third party, or the defendant in combination with a third party, has performed acts
`
`sufficient to constitute infringement; (2) that the defendant knew of the patent and that the acts in
`
`question would infringe; and (3) that the defendant had specific intent to encourage the third
`
`party’s infringement. See Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1308-
`
`09, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Akamai I”); DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304–06
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006); MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d
`
`1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`B.
`
`Rule 12(b)(7) – Necessary and Indispensable Parties Must Be Joined
`to a Lawsuit
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a person who is subject to service of process
`
`and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party
`
`if, inter alia, “that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated
`
`that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may” impair or impede the person’s ability to
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 159
`
`
`
`protect the interest or leave an existing party subject to risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent
`
`obligations because of the interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). If a plaintiff fails to join a necessary and
`
`indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, then dismissal of the lawsuit under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) is proper. “The movant bears the initial burden of
`
`demonstrating that an absent party is necessary, after which the burden then shifts to the party
`
`opposing joinder.” Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 570 F.3d 625, 628 (5th Cir.
`
`2009) (citing Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer, 784 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1986)).
`
`Determining whether to dismiss an action under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a
`
`necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19 requires a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must
`
`determine under Rule 19(a) whether a person should be joined to the lawsuit. H.S. Res., Inc. v.
`
`Wingate, 327 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2003). “If joinder is warranted, then the person will be
`
`brought into the lawsuit.” Id. “Deciding whether an entity is an indispensable party is a highly-
`
`practical, fact-based endeavor . . . .” Hood, 570 F.3d at 628.
`
`Joinder is necessary where a subsidiary “becomes more than a key witness whose
`
`testimony would be of inestimable value[, and i]nstead it emerges as an active participant” in the
`
`alleged tort. Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553, 559 (5th Cir. 1985). For instance,
`
`courts have found that “[f]oreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations that are responsible for the
`
`design, manufacture, sale, distribution, labeling, marketing, and foreign approval of foreign
`
`products are necessary parties . . .” in actions involving foreign products. Timberlake v. Synthes
`
`Spine, Inc., 2011 WL 2607044, *4-*5 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 30, 2011) (citing Polanco v. H.B. Fuller Co.,
`
`941 F. Supp. 1512, 1521 (D. Minn. 1996); see also id. (citing Gay v. AVCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 769
`
`F. Supp. 51, 56 (D.P.R. 1991) (“[W]here the subsidiary is an active participant in the activity
`
`alleged as the basis for recovery, the subsidiary should be a party to the action.”) and Lopez v.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 160
`
`
`
`Shearson Am. Express, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 1144, 1147 (D.P.R. 1988) (“The law appears very clear
`
`that where the subsidiary is the primary participant in a dispute involving both the parent and the
`
`subsidiary, the subsidiary is an indispensable party.”)).
`
`Second, even if the Court determines that joinder is necessary, “if such joinder would
`
`destroy the [C]ourt’s jurisdiction, then the Court turns to Rule 19(b) and determines “whether to
`
`press forward without the person or to dismiss the litigation.” H.S. Res., 327 F.3d at 439; see also
`
`Hood, 570 F.3d at 628. “In circumstances where the litigation should not proceed without [the
`
`absent party], the federal suit should be dismissed.” Pulitzer-Polster, 784 F.2d at 1308-09. Under
`
`Rule 19, joinder is not feasible: (1) when venue is improper; (2) when the absentee is not subject
`
`to personal jurisdiction; and (3) when joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction. E.E.O.C.
`
`v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 2005); Tick v. Cohen, 787 F.2d 1490, 1493
`
`(11th Cir. 1986). In determining whether to dismiss an action based on a failure to join a necessary
`
`and indispensable party, a court “may go outside the pleadings and look to extrinsic evidence such
`
`as documents or affidavits” when considering a Rule 12(b)(7) motion. Timberlake, 2011 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 70894, at *5 (internal quotation omitted).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT - THE COMPLAINT REMAINS UNSERVED, FAILS TO
`PLEAD A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED, AND
`OMITS A NECESSARY PARTY
`
`Defendants bring this Motion because NorthStar brings an improper case against the wrong
`
`party and improperly pleads claims of infringement. NorthStar’s attempt to preserve venue by
`
`omitting domestic entity BMW NA is fatal to this case because BMW NA is essential for this case
`
`to proceed, and this Court lacks venue over it. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully
`
`request that the Court dismiss NorthStar’s Complaint in favor of the parallel action in the WDTX
`
`with necessary party BMW NA.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 161
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)—The Complaint Lacks Factual
`Allegations and the Required Specificity, and Thus Fail to Put the
`Defendant on Notice
`
`NorthStar provides no facts in support of its allegations but rather just screenshots from
`
`various sources without providing a link to the claim element they purportedly illustrate. Thus,
`
`NorthStar fails to plead sufficient facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Instead, NorthStar pleads only “[t]hreadbare
`
`recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, [which] do
`
`not suffice.” Id. Although software cases require more specificity than other patent infringement
`
`allegations, Effectively Illuminated Pathways LLC v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America,
`
`Inc., 2011 WL 13223466, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2011) (“[c]ases involving more nebulous, less
`
`tangible inventions such as computer software methods require a greater degree of specificity to
`
`put the defendant on notice.”), NorthStar has failed to allege sufficient facts under any pleading
`
`standard.
`
`In particular, NorthStar accuses BMW AG of direct and indirect infringement, alleging that
`
`certain BMW products incorporate allegedly infringing navigation systems. Complaint, ¶¶ 20-21,
`
`31-32, 44-45, 57-58, 66-67. But these allegations are flawed because (1) NorthStar provides only
`
`screenshots and conclusory statements without any “factual allegations;” (2) NorthStar’s
`
`allegations concern intangible software claims; and (3) for three of the Asserted Patents, NorthStar
`
`fails to tie its four screenshots to any claim element, and for the remaining two of the Asserted
`
`Patents, NorthStar includes no citations or screenshots at all. Thus, the Complaint fails to plead
`
`sufficient factual allegations from which the Court may draw a reasonable inference of
`
`infringement. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`First, the Complaint pleads merely conclusory statements. The only allegations pleaded in
`
`support of direct infringement are rote paragraphs that parrot the asserted claim language, followed
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 162
`
`
`
`by repetition of that same claim language broken down by element—with no factual allegations.
`
`Complaint, ¶¶ 21-24, 33-36, 46-49, 58-59, 68-69. Specifically, NorthStar alleges that BMW AG
`
`infringes “at least claim 1,” of each the Asserted Patents without citing to a single factual
`
`allegation. NorthStar favors a mere parroting of the claim language over substance. In the tables
`
`below, identical portions of the asserted claim language and NorthStar’s Complaint are in
`
`underline.
`
`’432 Patent Claim 1
`
`A method of selecting which of a plurality of
`wireless communication options will be used
`by a mobile communication device,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) storing in a database information
`indicative of coverage areas for the wireless
`communication options along a route that the
`mobile communication device will be
`traversing, including storing boundary
`locations of the coverage areas for the
`wireless communication options along the
`route where the boundary locations stored are
`limited to boundary locations that are on
`streets of the route;
`
`(b) determining at the mobile communication
`device where on the route that the mobile
`communication device is at as it traverses the
`route;
`
`(c) accessing the database to obtain
`information regarding the communication
`options available alone the route;
`
`(d) determining whether to switch from a first
`one of the wireless communication options
`presently being used to a second one of the
`wireless communication options when the
`
`NorthStar Complaint Allegations
`(Complaint, ¶¶ 68-69)
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs a
`method of selecting which of a plurality of
`wireless communication options will be used
`by a mobile communication device.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of storing in a database information
`indicative of coverage areas for the wireless
`communication options along a route that the
`mobile communication device will be
`traversing, including storing boundary
`locations of the coverage areas for the
`wireless communication options along the
`route where the boundary locations stored are
`limited to boundary locations that are on
`streets of the route.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of determining at the mobile
`communication device where on the route that
`the mobile communication device is at as it
`traverses the route.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of accessing the database to obtain
`information regarding the communication
`options available alone the route.
`
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of determining whether to switch from a
`first one of the wireless communication
`options presently being used to a second one
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 26 Filed 06/19/23 Page 18 of 33 PageID #: 163
`
`
`
`mobile communication device approaches a
`boundary of a coverage area of one of the
`wireless communication options based on the
`wireless communication options available
`once the boundary is crossed and those that
`will be available further alone the route;
`
`(e) switching from the first one of the wireless
`communication options to the second