Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 393
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., et al,
`
`
`Defendants.
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`INC., et al,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00982-JRG
`
`Consolidated Lead Case
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00983-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-00049-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 394
`
`
`
`Defendants jointly moved to dismiss CCE’s contributory infringement claims for the ’060
`
`and ’966 Patents because the operative complaints fail to allege facts from which one can infer that
`
`(i) any accused component has no substantial non-infringing uses, or (ii) any accused
`
`“component” is a material part of the invention. Dkt. No. 45.1 CCE’s Opposition (Dkt. No. 63)
`
`does not meaningfully dispute either point. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should
`
`be granted.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`As an initial matter, CCE’s Opposition discusses only the allegations in the complaints
`
`regarding the ’966 Patent. CCE does not mention the ’060 Patent or address any allegations in the
`
`complaints regarding the ’060 Patent. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion should be granted – at a
`
`minimum – with respect to the ’060 Patent.
`
`The arguments CCE makes with respect to the ’966 Patent are unavailing, and cannot save
`
`that contributory infringement claim either. Namely, CCE failed to properly allege two basic
`
`elements of any contributory infringement claim, “[1] that the component has no substantial
`
`noninfringing uses, and [2] that the component is a material part of the invention.” Fujitsu Ltd. v.
`
`Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`First, CCE’s Opposition underscores the fact that the allegations in CCE’s complaints
`
`actually confirm that the accused components do indeed have substantial non-infringing uses. As
`
`explained in Defendants’ Motion, at best, CCE merely alleges that the baseband processor and
`
`related components can be “programmed and/or configured” to perform two different sets of
`
`
`1 “Defendants” refers to LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; Sony Mobile
`Communications Inc., Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.; Kyocera Communications, Inc.;
`AT&T Mobility LLC; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint
`Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC; T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. “CCE” refers to
`Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment LLC.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 395
`
`
`
`functions—one concerning the ’060 Patent and the other concerning the ’966 Patent. See Dkt. No.
`
`45 at 7. CCE’s Opposition claims the accused component is “identified hardware” combined with
`
`“targeted software instructions . . . for performing specific predetermined tasks.” Dkt. No. 63 at 6.
`
`However, this is just a convoluted way of alleging that the identified hardware component has no
`
`substantial non-infringing use only at the time the software is instructing the component to
`
`perform a specific task. Such allegations are insufficient because they “say nothing more than ‘if
`
`you use this device to perform the patented method, the device will infringe and has no
`
`non-infringing uses.’” See Dkt. No. 45 at 7 (quoting In re Bill of Lading Transmission and
`
`Processing System Patent Lit., 681 F.3d 1323, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Furthermore, CCE cannot deny that its allegation that Defendants provide instructions on
`
`how to use the accused products creates an inference that there are substantial non-infringing uses.
`
`See Dkt. No. 45 at 7 (citing U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Digi Int'l, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 114309, at *14 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2013)). Here, CCE claims that “the presence of
`
`instructions . . . pertaining to use of such extraneous components does not imply that the
`
`identified components have non-infringing uses.” Dkt. No. 63 at 5 (emphasis added). However,
`
`the allegations CCE actually pleaded do not state that the instructions are divorced from the
`
`alleged infringement, as CCE now claims. Namely, the complaints allege:
`
`Defendants have provided, and continue to provide, instructional
`materials . . . that specifically teach the customers and other end
`users to use the [accused devices] in an infringing manner. By
`providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have known), or
`should know (and should have known), that their actions have, and
`continue to, actively induce infringement.
`
`Case No 6:14-cv-982, Dkt No. 28, at ¶¶ 26 & 54; Dkt No. 29, at ¶¶ 22 & 48; Case No. 6:15-cv-49,
`
`Dkt No. 44, at ¶¶ 25 & 42 (emphasis added). Indeed, in defending identical induced infringement
`
`allegations in related cases, CCE told the Court:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 396
`
`
`
`[The] complaints expressly state that each Defendant specifically
`intends for its customers to use the identified products (among
`others) in an infringing manner and that each Defendant ‘instructs
`customers and end users regarding use of the [accused] devices.’
`See, e.g., HTC FAC, at ¶ 22. In other words, Defendants tell their
`customers how to use the accused products to infringe. There is no
`mystery to how this is accomplished.
`
`Case No. 6:13-cv-00507, Dkt. No. 146 at 7 (emphasis added). Thus, even if CCE’s allegations are
`
`taken at face value, they support the inference that the accused components do have substantial
`
`non-infringing uses.
`
`Second, CCE asserts that its complaints “identify particularly the hardware components
`
`and software functionality that are material to the subject inventions.” Dkt. No. 63 at 4. However,
`
`CCE points to nothing in the complaints from which the Court can infer that the alleged
`
`“components” are a material part of the invention. Instead, CCE relies on the same language that
`
`Judge Davis already found to be insufficient to support a claim for contributory infringement with
`
`respect to CCE’s complaint filed against Defendant Apple Inc. Id.
`
`In sum, CCE has failed to allege facts from which the Court could infer that any accused
`
`component has no substantial non-infringing uses, or that any accused “component” is a material
`
`part of the invention. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted.2
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss CCE’s claims against Defendants
`
`for contributory infringement for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`
`2 CCE claims that Defendants’ Motion was filed to “once again, achieve procedural delay.” Dkt.
`No. 63 at 6. This unfounded accusation ignores the fact that it is CCE’s deficient allegations that
`have necessitated the present motion practice, which constitutes Defendants’ first and only
`response to CCE’s allegations. Indeed, “once again” appears to be a misplaced reference to earlier
`motions filed in related cases. Those motions were granted with respect to contributory
`infringement. See Case No. 6:13-cv-00507, Dkt. No. 373 at 10-11. Furthermore, despite CCE’s
`refusal to drop the claims it cannot adequately plead, no procedural delay has resulted.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 397
`
`
`
`Dated: June 1, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1106
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Jeffrey D. Comeau
`CA Bar No. 259679
`jeffreycomeau@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive
`Twelfth Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121-3114
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Trey Yarbrough
`TX Bar No. 22133500
`trey@yw-lawfirm.com
`YARBROUGH WILCOX, PLLC
`100 E. Ferguson St., Suite 1015
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone (903) 595-3111
`Facsimile (903) 595-019
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR AT&T MOBILITY LLC
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`
`Jamie B. Beaber (D.C. Bar No. 484186)
`Michael W. Maas (D.C. Bar No. 493685)
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`jbeaber@mayerbrown.com
`mmaas@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`John C. Hueston (Pro Hac Vice)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 398
`
`
`
`Allen F. Gardner
`State Bar No. 24043679
`POTTER MINTON P.C.
`110 N. College Avenue, Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`allengardner@potterminton.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS LG
`ELECTRONICS, INC. AND LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert W. Weber
`Robert W. Weber
`Texas State Bar No. 21044800
`SMITH WEBER, L.L.P.
`5505 Plaza Drive -- P.O. Box 6167
`Texarkana, TX 75505-6167
`Telephone: 903-223-5656
`Facsimile: 903-223-5652
`bweber@smithweber.com
`
`Mark McGrory (Pro Hac Vice)
`ROUSE HENDRICKS GERMAN MAY PC
`1201 Walnut, 20th Floor
`Kansas City, MO 64106
`Telephone: 816-471-7700
`Facsimile: 816-471-2221
`MarkM@rhgm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SPRINT
`SOLUTIONS, INC.; SPRINT SPECTRUM
`L.P.; and BOOST MOBILE, LLC
`
`5
`
`Douglas J. Dixon (Pro Hac Vice)
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`620 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1300
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 226-6741
`DDixon@hueston.com
`JHueston@hueston.com
`
`Alexander C.D. Giza
`CA Bar No. 212327 (Admitted E.D. Tex.)
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90014
`Telephone: (213) 788-4340
`agiza@hueston.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. AND T-MOBILE US,
`INC.
`
`/s/ Charles T. Steenburg______________
`Richard L. Wynne
`Texas State Bar No. 24003214
`richard.wynne@tklaw.com
`
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`One Arts Plaza
`1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.969.1386
`Fax: 214.880.3267
`
`Michael N. Rader (pro hac vice)
`Charles T. Steenburg (pro hac vice)
`Chelsea A. Loughran (pro hac vice)
`W. Brett Morrison (pro hac vice)
`mrader@wolfgreenfield.com
`csteenburg@wolfgreenfield.com
`cloughran@wolfgreenfield.com
`wmorrison@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Telephone: 617-646-8000
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 399
`
`
`
`/s/ Jose L. Patiño
`Jose L. Patiño
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: 858-847-6875
`Facsimile: 858-792-6773
`jpatino@foley.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SONY
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC. and
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`(USA) INC.
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael E. Jones
`Michael E. Jones
`State Bar No. 10929400
`Patrick C. Clutter, IV
`State Bar No. 24036374
`mikejones@potterminton.com
`patrickclutter@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON, P.C.
`110 N. College Ave., Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`
`Charles B. Molster, III
`Virginia State Bar No. 23613
`Thomas M. Dunham
`D.C. Bar No. 448407
`Corrine M. Saylor
`D.C. Bar No. 997638 (Pro Hac Vice)
`cmolster@winston.com
`tdunham@winston.com
`csaylor@winston.com
`
`WINSTON &STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-3817
`Telephone: (202) 282-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 282-5100
`
`Sarah J. Kalemeris
`IL Bar No. 6303644
`skalemeris@winston.com
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W Wacker Drive
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A/ VERIZON
`WIRELESS
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 66 Filed 06/01/15 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 401
`
`
`
`
`
`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 this 1st day of June, 2015. As of this date
`all counsel of record have 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`