Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 3610
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.:
`Apple’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`August 28, 2019
`
`
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.:
`Apple’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`August 28, 2019
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 3611
`
`Maxell’s Complaint
`
`• Parties: Maxell, Ltd. and Apple Inc.
`• Filed: March 15, 2019
`• Asserted Patents: 6,748,317; 6,580,999; 8,339,493;
`7,116,438; 6,408,193; 10,084,991; 6,928,306;
`6,329,794; and 10,212,586
`• Liability Theories: Direct infringement, induced
`infringement, contributory infringement, and willful
`infringement
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3612
`
`Accused Apple Products
`
`Asserted
`Patent(s)
`’317, ’999, ’498
`
`Alleged Infringement
`
`“Walking Navigation” with Apple Maps + Find My
`Friends
`
`Accused Products
`
`iPhone, iPad, Watch
`
`’493
`
`’794
`
`’193
`
`’306
`
`’991
`
`’438
`
`’586
`
`Front- and rear-facing cameras with image sensors
`
`iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch
`
`Low Power Mode
`
`iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch
`
`Reduction of current consumption in CDMA chips
`
`iPhone, iPad
`
`Alert for incoming call via Siri / Do Not Disturb mode
`
`iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch
`
`FaceTime
`
`AirDrop authentication
`
`“Activation lock” and “unlock with iPhone”
`
`iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch,
`MacBook
`iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch,
`MacBook
`iPhone, Watch
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 3613
`
`Deficiencies in Maxell’s Complaint
`
`Failure to Allege
`
`Pre-Suit
`Inducement
`
`Post-Suit
`Inducement
`
`Pre-Suit
`Contributory
`
`Pre-Suit
`Willful
`
`X
`
`Specific intent to
`induce
`
`Pre-suit knowledge
`of infringement of
`any patent
`
`Pre-suit knowledge
`of ’586 patent
`
`X
`X
`X
`
`4
`
`X
`X
`
`X
`X
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 3614
`
`No Specific Intent to Induce Infringement
`
`• Maxell’s boilerplate allegations:
`
`5
`
`E.g., Complaint at ¶ 27 (’317 patent).
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 3615
`
`No Specific Intent: Landing Page for All Apple Manuals
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 3616
`
`No Specific Intent: Landing Page for All Apple Manuals
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 3617
`
`No Specific Intent: Landing Page for All Apple Manuals
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 3618
`
`No Specific Intent: Advertisement Page
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 3619
`
`No Specific Intent: Broad Cites Not Sufficient
`
`“[T]he provision of instructions by an accused infringer may
`indicate specific intent to induce infringement. However,
`failing to allege any facts identifying, even at a basic level,
`which functionalities of the accused products are at issue, or
`how the instructions direct customers to use those products
`in an infringing manner, falls short of satisfying Rule 8’s
`notice requirement.”
`
`Core Wireless S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:14-cv-752-JRG-JDL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107354, at *13 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 15, 2015).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 3620
`
`No Specific Intent: Broad Cites Not Sufficient
`
`• Specific website excerpts used for direct infringement allegations only:
`
`11
`
`Complaint at ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 3621
`
`No Specific Intent: Broad Cites Not Sufficient
`
`12
`
`Complaint at ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 3622
`
`No Specific Intent: Broad Cites Not Sufficient
`
`• Specific website excerpts used for direct infringement allegations only:
`
`13
`
`Complaint at ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 3623
`
`No Specific Intent: Relevance Not Sufficient
`
`• Maxell’s allegations must go beyond “relevance”
`
`14
`
`Maxell Surreply (D.I. 39) at 3.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 3624
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement
`
`• Maxell’s generic allegations:
`
`Which patents?
`
`When?
`
`What kind?
`
`What use?
`
`15
`
`Complaint at ¶ 5.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 3625
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement
`
`• Maxell’s generic allegations:
`
`16
`
`Complaint at ¶¶ 30, 102.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 3626
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement
`
`“Plaintiff argues that AMC has had constructive knowledge or has been willfully
`blind to its infringing. However, Plaintiff does not allege, for instance, how or when
`AMC acquired this constructive knowledge.”
`
`T-Rex Prop. AB v. Regal Enm’t Grp.,
`No. 16-cv-927-RWS-KNM, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156859, at *25 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017).
`
`“[T]he amended complaints do not allege that the [pre-suit notice] letter identified the
`[accused products]; nor do the amended complaints allege that the letter states that (let
`alone explained how) the [accused products] infringe the four patents asserted in Counts 1,
`2, 5, and 6. Thus, it cannot be said that Defendants knew or should have known from the
`alleged contents of the August 2017 letter that Defendants’ activities constituted a
`sufficient risk of infringement to make them cease those activities.”
`
`Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp.,
`No. 18-827-CFC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25885, at *15-16 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2019).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 3627
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement
`
`Maxell Surreply (D.I. 39) at 4-5 (citing Complaint at ¶ 5).
`
`18
`
`Complaint at ¶ 5.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 3628
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement
`
`Maxell Surreply (D.I. 39) at 4-5.
`
`19
`
`Complaint at ¶ 30.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 3629
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement
`
`Maxell Opposition (D.I. 31) at 10-11.
`
`20
`
`Complaint at ¶ 30.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 21 of 24 PageID #: 3630
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of ’586 Patent
`
`Complaint at ¶ 145.
`
`Oct. 9, 2018:
`Alleged “notice”
`of the ’586
`patent
`
`21
`
`Feb. 19, 2019:
`’586 patent
`issues
`
`Mar. 15, 2019:
`Complaint filed
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 22 of 24 PageID #: 3631
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of ’586 Patent
`
`Complaint at ¶ 145.
`
`Maxell Opposition (D.I. 31) at 8.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 23 of 24 PageID #: 3632
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of ’586 Patent
`
`• Providing notice of application does not make ’586 Patent
`foreseeable ex ante:
`
`“Plaintiff’s allegation that the scope of the [reissue patent’s] claims turned
`out to be similar or even identical to the [original patent’s] claims is
`beside the point. Pleading willful infringement requires a plausible
`allegation of subjective knowledge—that Defendants were on notice of the
`[reissue patent]. Plaintiff’s complaints do not state that Defendants had
`such notice, nor do they allege facts sufficient to permit that inference.”
`Diamond Grading Techs. v. Am. Gem Soc’y,
`No. 2:14-cv-1161-RWS-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105697 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2016).
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 68-1 Filed 08/28/19 Page 24 of 24 PageID #: 3633
`
`No Pre-Suit Knowledge of ’586 Patent
`
`• No “other fact” renders plausible Apple’s knowledge of the ’586 patent
`
`No mention of
`’586 patent
`
`24
`
`Complaint at ¶ 5.
`
`
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
