Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 44
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`
`PLECTRUM LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00141
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS ORACLE CORPORATION AND
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 45
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..............................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE INSTANT MOTION..................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Allegations Which Purport To Assert Claims Of Liability Against
`Oracle Based On The “Use Of The Accused Products By Its Customers.” ............3
`
`The Willful Infringement Allegations In The Complaint. .......................................4
`
`The Indirect Infringement Allegations In The Complaint. ......................................5
`
`DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE ....................................................................................................5
`
`I.
`
`PLECTRUM HAS FAILED TO PLEAD FACTS TO PLAUSIBLY ALLEGE
`THAT ORACLE CAN BE HELD LIABILE FOR ITS CUSTOMERS’ USE OF
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS. ...........................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Limited “Direction And Control” Exception Recognized By The
`Federal Circuit In Akamai Is Inapplicable Here As It Applies Only Where
`There Is More Than One Actor Involved In Practicing The Steps Of The
`Accused Method Claims. .........................................................................................7
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations That Oracle “Contracts” With Its Customers And
`Thereby Puts The Accused Products Into Service Is Insufficient. ...........................8
`
`The Complaint Fails To Plead Facts To Plausibly Show That The
`Customers’ Receipt Of The Unidentified “Benefit” Is “Conditioned” By
`Oracle. ....................................................................................................................10
`
`The Complaint Fails To Allege That Oracle “Establishes The Manner Or
`Timing” Of The Customers Performance Of The Accused Methods. ...................12
`
`The Lack Of Plausibility Of Plaintiff’s Assertion Of Liability Against
`Oracle Under the Limited Akamai Exception ls Further Demonstrated By
`The Fact That It Has Pled The Exact Same Allegations Against A
`Multitude Of Differently Situated Defendants In 15 Other
`Contemporaneously Filed Patent Complaints. .......................................................12
`
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 46
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PLECTRUM’S CLAIMS FOR WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT SHOULD BE
`DISMISSED. .....................................................................................................................13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Does Not Allege That Oracle Had Pre-Suit Knowledge Of Any
`Of The Asserted Patents And Post-Suit Knowledge Is Insufficient to
`Plausibly Allege Willful Infringement...................................................................14
`
`Plaintiff’s Conclusory Allegations Of Oracle’s Alleged Conduct Are
`Insufficient To State A Claim For Willful Infringement. ......................................15
`
`III.
`
`PLECTRUM HAS FAILED TO PLEAD FACTS TO PLAUSIBLY ALLEGE
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT. .........................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plectrum’s Claims For Indirect Infringement Prior To The Filing Of Its
`Complaint Should Be Dismissed. ..........................................................................17
`
`Plaintiff’s Conclusory Allegations Are Insufficient To State A Claim For
`Induced Infringement. ............................................................................................19
`
`Plaintiff’s Conclusory Allegations Are Insufficient To State A Claim For
`Contributory Infringement. ....................................................................................22
`
`The Lack Of Plausibility Of Plaintiff’s Indirect Infringement Claims Is
`Also Reflected In The Fact That It Has Pled The Exact Same Allegations
`Against A Multitude Of Different Defendants In Other
`Contemporaneously Filed Patent Complaints. .......................................................25
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 47
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Toyota Motor N. Am.,
` No. 6:13-cv-365, 2014 WL 2892285 (W.D. Tex. May 12, 2014) ............................. 17, 19, 21
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
` 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................... passim
`
`Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics,
` 831 F. Supp. 2d 817 (D. Del. 2011) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
` 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) ........................................................................ 1, 5, 6, 16
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
` 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech,
` 498 F. 3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................... 6
`
`Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen,
` 681 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Bush Seismic Techs., LLC v. Global Geophysical Servs., Inc.,
` Case No. 2:15-cv-01809-JRG (Apr. 13, 2016) ............................................................... passim
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
` _ U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) ...................................................................................... 19, 29
`
`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) .................. passim
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd.,
` 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 17
`
`Federal Circuit in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
` 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................... passim
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
` 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... 17
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A,
` 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) .................................................................................................... passim
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
` _ U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`In Re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litig.,
` 681 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................ 23, 25
`
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 48
`
`
`
`Lyda v. CBS Corp.,
` 838 F.3d. 1331 (Fed Cir. 2016).............................................................................. 8, 11, 14, 22
`
`Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Apple Inc.,
` No. 2:150-cv-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 1253740 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) .............................. 18
`
`Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc. et al,
` Case No. 2:16-cv-00325-JRG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2016) ................................................ 14, 15
`
`PerDiemCo, LLC v. Industrack LLC,
` No. 2:15-cv-00727-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 8135379 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2016) ............. 9, 10, 11
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Arista Networks, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00076-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00078-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00079-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00081-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Fortinet, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00082-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00083-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00084-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. AT&T Inc,., et al.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00120-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ....................................................................... 3, 13
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, et al.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00121-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 25
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Comcast Corporation, et al.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00123-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ....................................................................... 3, 13
`
`Plectrum LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00124-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 26
`
`Plectrum LLC v. NEC Corporation Of America, et al.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00125-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 26
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00126-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ....................................................................... 3, 13
`
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 49
`
`
`
`Plectrum LLC v. Nokia USA, Inc., et al.,
` Case No. 4:17-cv-00140-ALM (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3, 13, 26
`
`Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Texas,
` No. 2:15-cv-1955-JRG, 2016 WL 3542430 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2016) ......................... passim
`
`Tierra Intelectual Borinquen, Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int’l, Inc.,
` No. 2:13-cv-38-JRG, 2014 WL 894805 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2014)............................ 19, 20, 21
`
`Touchscreen Gestures LLC v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
` No. 6:12-CV-263-MHS, 2013 WL 8505349 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2013) .............................. 15
`
`FEDERAL STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ........................................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ............................................................................................................... 5, 17, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ......................................................................................................... 5, 17, 22, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ......................................................................................................................... 4, 13
`
`FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 50
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants Oracle Corporation and
`
`Oracle America, Inc. (hereinafter collectively “Oracle”) move to dismiss each of the three counts
`
`asserted against them in the complaint by plaintiff Plectrum LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or
`
`“Plectrum”) on the grounds that each count fails to state a claim against Oracle upon which relief
`
`may be granted.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether each of the three counts purportedly asserted in Plectrum’s complaint fails to
`
`state a claim against Oracle upon which relief can be granted under the plausibility standard
`
`established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. 662 (2009). This includes particularly whether the complaint fails to adequately plead
`
`claims as to each of the three asserted patents for: (a) liability for Oracle’s customers’ use of the
`
`accused products under a limited theory recognized by the Federal Circuit in Akamai Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. en banc 2015); (b) willful
`
`infringement; and (c) indirect infringement, both as to the time periods prior to, as well as after
`
`the filing of the complaint.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE INSTANT MOTION
`
`On February 24, 2017, Plectrum filed a complaint for patent infringement naming Oracle
`
`Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. as defendants. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1). The complaint
`
`purports to set forth three counts against Oracle, each asserting direct infringement of a separate
`
`patent.
`
`Count one of the complaint alleges that Oracle has directly infringed claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,978,951 (’951), which is a method claim. (Compl. ¶ 22). Count two alleges that
`
`Oracle has directly infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,205,149 (’149), which is also a method
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 51
`
`
`
`claim. (Compl. ¶ 35). The allegations of the first two counts which respectively assert direct
`
`infringement of the ’951 and the ’149 patents, are directed at the same accused Oracle products –
`
`both count one and count two accuse Oracle’s ES1-24 Ethernet switch. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 34)
`
`Count three of the complaint alleges that Oracle has directly infringed claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,751,677 (’677) is also a method claim. (Compl. ¶ 47). The infringement allegations
`
`of the third count based on the ’677 patent are directed at Oracle’s Virtual Network Services.
`
`(Compl. ¶ 46).
`
`After setting forth three counts for direct infringement of each separate asserted patent,
`
`the complaint includes one paragraph labeled “Additional Allegations Regarding Direct
`
`Infringement,” (Compl. ¶ 55), and then several paragraphs of what Plectrum labels “Additional
`
`Allegations Regarding Indirect Infringement.” (Compl. ¶¶ 56-62). This portion of the complaint
`
`purports to assert additional claims against Oracle as to each of the three asserted patents for: (a)
`
`liability for Oracle’s customers’ use of the accused products under a limited theory recognized in
`
`Akamai; (b) willful infringement; and (c) indirect infringement based on both inducement and
`
`contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 55-62). The allegations in this portion of the complaint
`
`do not differentiate between the three asserted patents or the different accused products. Id.
`
`Rather, these allegations are based on generalized conclusory statements that lump together and
`
`reference all three patents and all accused Oracle products. Id. Moreover, the exact same
`
`generalized statements made in the complaint in this case were also used verbatim by Plectrum
`
`in 15 other contemporaneously filed patent infringement complaints that it filed in this District
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 52
`
`
`
`asserting the same “additional” theories of alleged infringement against a multitude of other
`
`unrelated defendants who manufacture and sell entirely different products.1
`
`A.
`
`The Allegations Which Purport To Assert Claims Of Liability Against Oracle Based
`On The “Use Of The Accused Products By Its Customers.”
`
`Each of the claims of the ’951, ’149 and ’677 patents identified in the first three counts of
`
`Plectrum’s complaint against Oracle are method claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 35, 47). In paragraph
`
`55 of the complaint Plectrum attempts to assert claims of direct infringement against Oracle as to
`
`all three of the asserted patents not based on Oracle’s own acts, but rather based on the “use of
`
`the accused products by its customers.” (Compl. ¶ 55). Plectrum claims that Oracle is liable for
`
`direct infringement for its customers’ performance of the asserted method claims based on the
`
`conclusory assertion that Oracle “exercises direction or control” over its customers presumably
`
`attempting to rely on the Federal Circuit decision in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks,
`
`Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. en banc 2015).
`
`
`1 See, Plectrum LLC v. Arista Networks, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00076-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt.
`No. 1, ¶¶ 54-56); Plectrum LLC v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-
`00077-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 54-56): Plectrum LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No.
`4:17-cv-00078-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 63-65); Plectrum LLC v. Extreme Networks,
`Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00079-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 54-46); Plectrum LLC v.
`Facebook, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00081-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 39-41); Plectrum
`LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00082-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 54-56);
`Plectrum LLC v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00083-ALM, (Complaint,
`Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 56-58); Plectrum LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00084-ALM,
`(Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 56-58); Plectrum LLC v. AT&T Inc,., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00120-
`ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 63); Plectrum LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No.
`4:17-cv-00121-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 61-63); Plectrum LLC v. Comcast Corporation,
`et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00123-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 63); Plectrum LLC v. F5
`Networks, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00124-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 23-25); Plectrum LLC
`v. NEC Corporation Of America, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00125-ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1,
`¶¶ 58-60); Plectrum LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00126-ALM,
`(Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 68); Plectrum LLC v. Nokia USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00140-
`ALM, (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 59-62).
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 53
`
`
`
`The only facts pled in paragraph 55 in support of the conclusion that Oracle exercises
`
`such “direction and control” are that: (1) in some unspecified manner Oracle “contracts with the
`
`customer to provide network services and equipment, including the accused products” and by
`
`doing so “is putting the accused products into service”; and (2) that Oracle in some unexplained
`
`way “…conditions the benefit received by each customer from using the accused products…such
`
`benefit including improved network functionality, only if the accused products are used in the
`
`manner prescribed by Defendants.” (Compl. ¶ 55). No other specificity is provided and no other
`
`facts are alleged to demonstrate that, or how, Oracle exercises “direction and control over the use”
`
`of each of the accused products by its customers. Id. As discussed below, Plectrum repeats
`
`verbatim the exact same language set forth in paragraph 55 of the complaint against Oracle in
`
`each of the 15 other contemporaneously filed patent infringement complaints that Plectrum has
`
`filed in this District. In these complaints, Plectrum alleges that each of many other unrelated
`
`defendants sued in those cases also exercise “direction and control” over their customers’ use of
`
`the distinct products each of them manufacture and sell based on the exact same factual
`
`allegations set forth in the complaint against Oracle.
`
`B.
`
`The Willful Infringement Allegations In The Complaint.
`
`The complaint fails to allege any specific facts with respect to any conduct by Oracle to
`
`support Plectrum’s willful infringement claims, and instead relies on boilerplate generalized
`
`legal conclusions. (Compl. ¶¶ 58-61). The complaint recites the exact same language to attempt
`
`to assert willfulness by Oracle as to each of the three asserted patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 58-61). Based
`
`on these allegations, the complaint prays for an award of increased damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284. (Compl. Prayer, ¶ (c)). The complaint does not allege that Oracle had knowledge of any
`
`of the asserted patents before being served with the complaint, instead stating that Oracle had
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 54
`
`
`
`knowledge of the three patents “at least as early as of the date when it was notified of the filing
`
`of this action.” (Compl. ¶ 58).
`
`C.
`
`The Indirect Infringement Allegations In The Complaint.
`
`In paragraphs 56 and 57, the complaint attempts to state claims against Oracle for alleged
`
`indirect infringement of each of the three patents based on inducement and contributory
`
`infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57). Paragraph 56 purports to state facts to support a claim for
`
`induced infringement as to all three asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), while paragraph
`
`57 attempts to state claims for contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`As noted above, the complaint does not allege that Oracle had knowledge of any of the
`
`asserted patents before Plectrum’s complaint was filed. (Compl. ¶ 58). Though the complaint
`
`attempts to assert claims of indirect infringement based on three separate patents and directed at
`
`different accused Oracle products, the complaint does not set forth any separate or distinct
`
`allegations to support its indirect infringement claims with respect to the three separate asserted
`
`patents or the different accused products.
`
`DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE
`
`To state a claim, the complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
`
`plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955
`
`(2007). A plaintiff must provide the grounds of its entitlement to relief beyond “mere labels and
`
`conclusions,” and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at
`
`555. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
`
`accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “‘A claim has facial
`
`plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
`
`that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 55
`
`
`
`215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ). “[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements
`
`of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” without any factual support are
`
`insufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`I.
`
`PLECTRUM HAS FAILED TO PLEAD FACTS TO PLAUSIBLY ALLEGE
`THAT ORACLE CAN BE HELD LIABILE FOR ITS CUSTOMERS’ USE OF
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS.
`
`Oracle moves to dismiss Plectrum’s claims which assert that Oracle can be liable for
`
`direct infringement for the “use of the accused products by its customers” based on the
`
`conclusory assertion that Oracle supposedly exercises “direction or control over the use of the
`
`accused products by its customers.” (Compl. ¶ 55). The theory accepted by the Federal Circuit
`
`in Akamai on which Plectrum’s complaint attempts to plead as a basis for liability against Oracle
`
`was established as a limited exception to the general rule that a claim for direct infringement
`
`requires that all steps of an asserted method claim be performed by a single entity. Akamai
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. en banc 2015); BMC
`
`Res., Inc. v Paymentech, 498 F. 3d 1373, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In Akamai, the Federal
`
`Circuit held that in certain specific factual circumstances an entity may be held liable for direct
`
`infringement based on another’s performance of some of the steps of a method claim –
`
`specifically “when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a
`
`benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or
`
`timing of that performance.” Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1023.
`
`However, as a threshold matter the limited exception recognized in Akamai is
`
`inapplicable here. Unlike the “divided infringement” situation addressed in Akamai in which
`
`Limelight performed some of the steps of the asserted method claims and its customers
`
`performed other steps, Plectrum asserts claims against Oracle for direct infringement in
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 56
`
`
`
`circumstances where Oracle’s customers allegedly perform all of the steps of the asserted
`
`method claims of the ‘951, ‘149 and ‘677 patents. (Compl. ¶ 55).
`
`Moreover, the complaint in this case fails to allege facts sufficient to plausibly establish
`
`Oracle’s liability under this limited Akamai exception, even if it could be applied outside the
`
`context of “divided infringement” claims. The only facts pled in Plectrum’s complaint to
`
`attempt to support this theory are in paragraph 55 and consist of the general and vague
`
`allegations that: (1) in some unspecified manner Oracle “contracts with the customer to provide
`
`network services and equipment, including the accused products” and by doing so “is putting the
`
`accused products into service”; and (2) that Oracle in some unexplained way “…conditions the
`
`benefit received by each customer from using the accused products… such benefit including
`
`improved network functionality, only if the accused products are used in the manner prescribed
`
`by Defendants.” (Compl. ¶ 55). No other specificity or facts are alleged in the complaint.
`
`A.
`
`The Limited “Direction And Control” Exception Recognized By The Federal
`Circuit In Akamai Is Inapplicable Here As It Applies Only Where There Is More
`Than One Actor Involved In Practicing The Steps Of The Accused Method Claims.
`
`Plectrum’s claims, which assert that Oracle can be liable for direct infringement based
`
`solely on the “use of the accused products by its customers,” should be dismissed in the first
`
`instance because the limited exception to the “single entity” requirement for direct infringement
`
`recognized by the Federal Circuit in Akamai is inapplicable here because Plectrum is not
`
`claiming “divided infringement.”
`
`It is well settled that a claim for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) requires
`
`that all steps of an asserted method claim be performed by a single entity. Akamai, 797 F.3d
`
`at1022 (Fed. Cir. en banc 2015). While the Federal Circuit recognized in its 2015 en banc
`
`decision in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. that there may be limited exceptions
`
`to that general rule in certain factual circumstances, it recognized these exceptions only in
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 57
`
`
`
`circumstances where “more than one actor is involved in practicing the steps” – the so called
`
`“divided infringement” situation. See Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., supra at
`
`1022 (“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.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Here, Plectrum’s complaint does not allege that some steps of the asserted method claims
`
`are performed by Oracle while other steps are performed by Oracle’s customers. Rather,
`
`Plectrum attempts to apply the limited exception recognized in Akamai to claim Oracle is liable
`
`for direct infringement based on claims that all of the steps of the asserted method claims are
`
`allegedly performed by Oracle’s customers. (Compl. ¶ 55). But the Federal Circuit’s en banc
`
`decision in Akamai does not support this theory, and Oracle is not aware of any subsequent court
`
`decision applying the Akamai exception where only one actor practices all of the steps of the
`
`accused method claims. Plectrum’s attempted reliance on the limited “direction and control“
`
`exception recognized by the Federal Circuit in Akamai is accordingly misplaced. Plectrun’s
`
`claims seeking to impose liability against Oracle for direct infringement based solely on the use
`
`of the accused products by Oracle’s customers should therefore be dismissed.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations That Oracle “Contracts” With Its Customers And Thereby
`Puts The Accused Products Into Service Is Insufficient.
`
`Even assuming arguendo that the limited Akamai exception could be applied outside the
`
`context of “divided infringement” claims, the complaint in this case fails to allege facts sufficient
`
`to plausibly establish Oracle’s liability under this theory. See Lyda v. CBS Corp., 838 F.3d.
`
`1331, 1338 (Fed Cir. 2016) (claims for divided infringement required to meet the Iqbal/Towmbly
`
`pleading standards).
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 58
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 55 that Oracle contracts with its customers to provide
`
`them with the accused products is insufficient to plausibly establish a basis for liability under the
`
`exception recognized in Akamai. Notably, nothing is stated in the complaint about the nature or
`
`terms of any “contracts” that Oracle is alleged to have entered into with its customers. Id.
`
`Rather, the complaint alleges “[w]hen Defendant contracts with the customer to provide network
`
`services and equipment . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 55). However, such a generalized and vague reference
`
`to the fact that in some unspecified manner Oracle contracts with its customers to provide them
`
`with the accused products does not plausibly show the basis for liability addressed in Akamai,
`
`where the content of the contracts at issue specifically delineated that the customers must
`
`perform the tagging and serving content steps of the method claims at issue in Akamai. Akamai
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., supra at 1024. PerDiemCo, LLC v. Industrack LLC, No.
`
`2:15-cv-00727-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 8135379, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2016) (“PerDiem’s
`
`theory stands in stark contrast to the circumstances considered by the Federal Circuit in Akamai,
`
`in which the accused infringer required customers to sign a standard form contract that
`
`delineated which claimed steps the customers “must perform.”).
`
`Moreover, even though the complaint alleges infringement based on two entirely separate
`
`accused products one of which is hardware and one of which is software,2 the complaint fails to
`
`separately plead or independently address the nature or terms of the alleged “contracts”
`
`supposedly entered into with customers as to these disparate accused products. (Compl. ¶ 55).
`
`Such a general, conclusory and lumped together “across the board” statement as to alleged
`
`contracts relating to all asserted patents and all accused products is on its face implausible. Core
`
`
`2 The complaint alleges that Oracle’s ES1-24 Ethernet switches infringe the ‘951 and ‘149
`patents and alleges that the asserted method claim of the ‘677 patent is infringed by Oracle’s
`Virtual Network Services software. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 34, 46).
`
`34317\5941991.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 14