Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 17 PageID 248
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`MICROGRAFX, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC. and MOTOROLA
`MOBILITY LLC,
`
`Civil Action No. 3:13-3595-N
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.’S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OF WILLFUL, INDUCED, AND CONTRIBUTORY
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
`
`Jon B. Hyland (State Bar No. 24046131)
` Em: jhyland@munsch.com
`MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
` 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3800
` Dallas, Texas 75201-6659
` Ph: (214) 855-7544; Fx: (214) 978-5360
`
`Darin W. Snyder (admitted pro hac vice)
` (CA. S.B. #136003)
` Em: dsnyder@omm.com
`Luann L. Simmons (admitted pro hac vice)
` (CA. S.B. #203526)
` Em : lsimmons@omm.com
`David S. Almeling (admitted pro hac vice)
` (CA. S.B. #235449)
` Em: dalmeling@omm.com
`Hana K. Andersen (admitted pro hac vice)
` (CA. S.B #289517)
` Em: handersen@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
` Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
` San Francisco, CA 94111
` Ph: (415) 984-8700; Fx: (415) 984-8701
`
`Mishima Alam (admitted pro hac vice)
` (CA. S.B # 271621) (*admitted only in CA;
` supervised by principals of the Firm)
` Em: malam@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
` 1625 Eye Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20003
` Ph: (202) 383-5300; Fx: (202) 383-5414
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS GOOGLE, INC. and
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 2 of 17 PageID 249
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 2 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 2 
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 3 
`A. Micrografx Failed to Adequately Plead Willful Infringement .......................... 3 
`B. Micrografx Failed to Adequately Plead Indirect Infringement
`and Thus Its Claims Must Be Dismissed ........................................................... 5 
`1.  Micrografx failed to adequately plead that
`Defendantshad notice of the Asserted Patents .............................................. 5 
`2.  Micrografx failed to adequately plead that the
`accused products have “no substantial non-infringing uses” ........................ 7 
`3.  Micrografx failed to adequately plead that Defendants
`possessed the specific intent to induce infringement .................................... 9 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 11 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE ii
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 3 of 17 PageID 250
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`Aguirre v. Powerchute Sports, LLC,
`No. 10–0702, 2011 WL 2471299 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2011) ...................................................6
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .........................................................................................................3, 5, 11
`
`Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 11-04049, 2012 WL 2343163, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) .........................................10
`
`Bascom Research LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 12-6293, 2013 WL 968210 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) ......................................................6
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .........................................................................................................3, 5, 11
`
`Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. v. American Eurocopter, LLC,
`729 F. Supp. 2d 789 (N.D. Tex. 2010) ..............................................................................4, 5, 6
`
`Brandywine Commc’ns Techs., LLC v. Casio Computer Co.,
`912 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2012) .................................................................................6, 9
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................10
`
`Execware, LLC v. Staples, Inc.,
`No. 11–836, 2012 WL 6138340, at *7 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2012) ................................................4
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................ passim
`
`In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
`497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. 7PSolutions, LLC,
`No. 12-03709, Dkt. No. 36, 16-17 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2013) ................................................, 5
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l Inc.,
`No. 12–1067, 2013 WL 444642 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) .........................................................6
`
`Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 11-1681, 2012 WL 1835680 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) .....................................................6
`
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Express MD Solutions, LLC,
`No. 12–00068, 2012 WL 2803617, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) .........................................4
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE iii
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 4 of 17 PageID 251
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc.,
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2013) ..........................................................................................................10
`
`Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO Software Inc.,
`No. 11–06638, 2012 WL 1831543, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2012) ....................................4, 6
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holdings, Inc.,
`581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ...........................................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) .......................................................................................................................2, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ................................................................................................................................2
`
`RULES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ................................................................................1, 2, 3
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) ...................................................................................2
`
`
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE iv
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 5 of 17 PageID 252
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated in the following memorandum of law, Defendants Google Inc. and
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC respectfully request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) that
`
`this Court dismiss Plaintiff Micrografx, LLC’s claims that Google and Motorola are liable for
`
`willful infringement and induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), and contributory
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Micrografx, LLC (“Micrografx”) amended its original complaint against
`
`Defendants Google Inc. (“Google”) and Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola,” together with
`
`Google, “Defendants”) to add new claims of willful infringement, induced infringement, and
`
`contributory infringement. (Dkt. No. 39.) The Court should dismiss these added claims under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because Micrografx does not allege sufficient facts to
`
`state claims that are plausible on their face:
`
` Micrografx’s willful infringement claim fails to allege any facts to support the
`requirement that Defendants had prefiling notice of the asserted patents. Instead,
`Micrografx only asserts –– with zero supporting factual allegations –– that “upon
`information and belief,” Google and Motorola were on notice of the asserted patents
`before the service of the original complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 39, 48.)
`
` Similarly, Micrografx’s contributory infringement claims contain insufficient factual
`allegations to support Micrografx’s assertion that the accused products have “no
`substantial non-infringing uses,” an essential element of a contributory infringement
`claim. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 37, 46.) It is simply not plausible that the accused products —
`mapping software and browser software on phones, tablets, and notebooks — have no
`function other than to satisfy the asserted patent claims regarding providing
`“interactive vector graphics” over a network or “delegat[ing] the production” of
`shapes.
`
` Finally, a claim for induced infringement requires that the defendant knew that its
`customers’ acts constituted infringement and that it specifically intended its
`customers to infringe. But Micrografx’s induced infringement claims contain
`insufficient facts to support Micrografx’s assertion that Google or Motorola knew that
`their customers’ acts constituted infringement or that they specifically intended their
`customers to infringe.
`
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 1
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 6 of 17 PageID 253
`
`
`
`Because Micrografx’s boilerplate, conclusory assertions are insufficient to meet the
`
`plausibility test for surviving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court should dismiss
`
`Micrografx’s newly added claims.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`On September 9, 2013, Micrografx filed a Complaint against Google and Motorola
`
`alleging direct
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,057,854 (“’854 Patent”), 6,552,732
`
`(“’732 Patent”), and 5,959,633 (“’633 Patent,” and together with the ’732 Patent and the ’854
`
`Patent, “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Google and Motorola filed their respective Answers
`
`on November 18, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 23.)
`
`On December 6, 2013, Micrografx filed its First Amended Complaint (“Amended
`
`Complaint”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (Dkt. No. 39.) Micrografx
`
`repeated its direct infringement allegations and added two additional accused devices. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 24-25, 33-34, 42-43.) Micrografx’s direct infringement claims are not at issue in this motion.
`
` The Amended Complaint adds, for the first time, allegations that Micrografx is entitled
`
`to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 based on Google’s and Motorola’s alleged willful
`
`infringement. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 39, 48.) Also new in the Amended Complaint are allegations that
`
`Google and Motorola induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and engaged in
`
`contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). (Id. ¶¶ 26-29, 35-38, 44-47.) This Motion
`
`addresses these newly added claims.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`In OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. 7PSolutions, LLC, No. 12-03709, Dkt. No. 36, 16-17
`
`(N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2013), this Court identified the legal standards applicable to Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motions to dismiss in patent cases. Such motions constitute a “purely procedural issue” that is
`
`governed by Fifth Circuit law. In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 2
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 7 of 17 PageID 254
`
`
`
`Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
`
`plaintiff must provide “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). The plausibility standard is not met unless the
`
`“plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
`
`defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. Micrografx Failed to Adequately Plead Willful Infringement
`
`Micrografx asks this Court to find that Defendants willfully infringed the Asserted
`
`Patents, thereby subjecting Defendants to treble damages. (Dkt. No. 39 ¶¶ 30, 39, 48.) To assert
`
`willful infringement, Micrografx must plead sufficient facts to support its claims that Defendants
`
`“acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions constituted infringement of a
`
`valid patent” and that the “objectively defined risk . . . was either known or so obvious that it
`
`should have been known to [Defendants].” In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Micrografx has not pleaded facts to state a plausible claim of willful infringement
`
`because (1) notice of the Asserted Patents based on filing of the original Complaint is not
`
`sufficient to plead willful infringement, and (2) Micrografx pleaded no facts to support its
`
`assertion that Defendants had pre-filing notice of the Asserted Patents. The extent of
`
`Micrografx’s allegation is the following fact-less, conclusory accusation: “Google and Motorola
`
`were on notice of the [Asserted Patents] since Micrografx served its initial complaint and, upon
`
`information and belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its initial complaint.” (Dkt. No. 39 ¶¶
`
`30, 39, 48.) Micrografx repeats this assertion three times, once for each asserted patent. (Id.)
`
`As the Federal Circuit instructed in In re Seagate, “a willfulness claim asserted in the
`
`original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused infringer’s prefiling
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 3
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 8 of 17 PageID 255
`
`
`
`conduct.” 497 F.3d at 1374. District courts routinely apply In re Seagate and dismiss willful
`
`infringement claims in original and amended complaints that are not supported by factual
`
`allegations of pre-filing notice. For example, in Execware, LLC v. Staples, Inc., the court granted
`
`a motion to dismiss based on the following reasoning: “[The plaintiff’s] amended complaint
`
`relies solely on allegations that [the defendant] was made aware of the [asserted] patent by the
`
`filing of the original complaint in the present action. As a result, its claim for willful
`
`infringement must fail.” No. 11–836, 2012 WL 6138340, at *7 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2012).
`
`Courts have further held that the required prefiling notice allegations must be supported
`
`by facts — mere conclusory allegations of notice of the patents-in-suit are insufficient. For
`
`example, in Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO Software Inc., the court granted a motion to
`
`dismiss an amended complaint where the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant had actual
`
`notice of the patent “by at least” the date of the original complaint, finding that the amended
`
`complaint was “silent as to whether [plaintiff] has any factual bases for its claim” of pre-suit
`
`knowledge. No. 11–06638, 2012 WL 1831543, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2012). Similarly, in
`
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Express MD Solutions, LLC, the court granted a
`
`motion to dismiss, finding “that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead its claims for willful
`
`infringement” because “Plaintiff has failed to make out even the ‘barest factual assertion’ that
`
`Defendant knew of the patents-in-suit.” No. 12–00068, 2012 WL 2803617, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July
`
`10, 2012); see also Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. v. American Eurocopter, LLC, 729 F. Supp. 2d
`
`789, 800 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (granting a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims that defendant
`
`was, “on information and belief,” willfully infringing the asserted patents because the court
`
`“found no facts…that support the claim of willfulness”).
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 4
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 9 of 17 PageID 256
`
`
`
`Because Micrografx similarly fails to make even the “barest factual assertion” that
`
`Defendants knew of the patents-in-suit before the original complaint was filed, this Court should
`
`dismiss Micrografx’s claims of willful infringement.
`
`B. Micrografx Failed to Adequately Plead Indirect Infringement and Thus Its
`Claims Must Be Dismissed
`
`As this Court explained in OnAsset, the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Bill of Lading
`
`established the test for pleading claims of indirect infringement –– both induced infringement
`
`and contributory infringement. No. 12-03709, Dkt. No. 36 at 17. This Court further explained
`
`that the test for such claims is not Form 18 but, rather, the plausibility test from Twombly and
`
`Iqbal. Id.
`
`Micrografx’s allegations of indirect infringement fail the plausibility test for at least three
`
`reasons. Micrografx has not pleaded sufficient facts to support its assertions that (1) Defendants
`
`had notice of the Asserted Patents (required for both induced and contributory infringement), (2)
`
`the accused products have “no substantial non-infringing uses” (required for contributory
`
`infringement), and (3) Defendants possessed the specific intent to induce infringement (required
`
`for induced infringement).
`
`1.
`
`Micrografx failed to adequately plead that Defendants had notice of
`the Asserted Patents
`
`Claims of contributory and induced infringement both require notice of the asserted
`
`patents. In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1339. In its attempt to plead this required element,
`
`Micrografx simply repeats the conclusory, fact-less assertion it makes regarding willful
`
`infringement — Defendants were on notice of the Asserted Patents “since Micrografx served in
`
`its initial complaint and, upon information and belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its initial
`
`complaint.” (Dkt. No. 39 ¶¶ 27, 36, 45.) This allegation fails to support the notice requirements
`
`for Micrografx’s indirect infringement claims for the same reason it fails to support Micrografx’s
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 5
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 10 of 17 PageID 257
`
`
`
`willfulness claim: it does not plead any facts of pre-filing notice. See, e.g. Vasudevan, 2012 WL
`
`1831543, at *3-4; Bell Helicopter, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 800.
`
`Micrografx has not met its burden in pleading the required pre-suit notice of the Asserted
`
`Patents for purposes of indirect infringement. Thus, this Court should follow the numerous
`
`courts that, when faced with such allegations, grant motions to dismiss based on the reasoning
`
`that knowledge of an asserted patent after a lawsuit is filed “is insufficient to plead the requisite
`
`knowledge for indirect infringement.” Aguirre v. Powerchute Sports, LLC, No. 10–0702, 2011
`
`WL 2471299, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2011); see also, e.g., Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`No. 11-1681, 2012 WL 1835680, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) (holding that “knowledge after
`
`filing of the present action is not sufficient for pleading the requisite knowledge for indirect
`
`infringement”); Brandywine Commc’ns Techs., LLC v. Casio Computer Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1338, 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (“The weight of authority addressing the knowledge required for
`
`indirect infringement, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision in Global-Tech,
`
`requires a plaintiff to allege that defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.”).1
`
`Micrografx’s conclusory allegation that Google and Motorola had knowledge of the
`
`Asserted Patents “on information and belief” before Micrografx served its Original Complaint is
`
`not sufficient to adequately plead pre-suit knowledge. This Court should dismiss Micrografx’s
`
`claims of indirect infringement for both induced infringement and contributory infringement.
`
`
`
`1 Courts are split on whether notice via the complaint can meet the knowledge requirement for indirect
`infringement. The better authority, cited above, is that it cannot. But even courts holding that such notice
`can meet the requirement limit the reach of such claims to post-filing conduct. See e.g., Bascom Research
`LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-6293, 2013 WL 968210, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) (“If [plaintiff]
`alleges that defendants’ knowledge is based on the filing of the complaints, [plaintiff’s] claims for
`induced infringement will be limited to post-filing conduct.”); Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l Inc.,
`No. 12–1067, 2013 WL 444642, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) (same).
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 6
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 11 of 17 PageID 258
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Micrografx failed to adequately plead that the accused products have
`“no substantial non-infringing uses”
`
`As summarized in In re Bill of Lading: “Contributory infringement occurs if a party sells
`
`or offers to sell, a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, and that
`
`‘material or apparatus’ is material to practicing the invention, has no substantial non-infringing
`
`uses, and is known by the party ‘to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of a patent.’” 681 F.3d at 1337 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)). In re Bill of Lading
`
`continues that “[i]n the context of a claim of contributory infringement under § 271(c), a
`
`substantial non-infringing use is any use that is ‘not unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical,
`
`occasional, aberrant, or experimental.’” 681 F.3d at 1337 (quoting Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic
`
`Holdings, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1327–29 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). In short, under In re Bill of Lading,
`
`“the inquiry [on this element] focuses on whether the accused products can be used for purposes
`
`other than infringement.” 681 F.3d at 1338.
`
`Micrografx makes separate but nearly identical allegations of contributory infringement
`
`for the ’854/’732 Patents and the ’633 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`’854/’732 Patents. Micrografx alleges that the only use of the accused “component,
`material, or apparatus” is to download “interactive vector graphics:” Google and/or
`Motorola provide phones, tablets, and notebooks that include two applications
`(Google Maps and Google Chrome Browser) that are not “staple article[s] of
`commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use at least because the component,
`material, or apparatus has no use apart from or that does not include downloading
`over a network and rendering an interactive vector object as claimed.” (Dkt. No. 39
`¶¶ 28, 37.)
`
`’633 Patent. Micrografx alleges that the only use of the same accused “component,
`material, or apparatus” is to “access an external shape” and “delegate the production
`of a graphical image of the external shape:” Google and/or Motorola provide phones,
`tablets, and notebooks that include the Google Maps application that are not “staple
`article[s] of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use at least because the
`component, material, or apparatus has no use apart from or that does not include the
`functionality to access and/or operable to access an external shape stored outside the
`application and delegate the production of a graphical image of the external shape as
`claimed.” (Id. ¶ 46.)
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 7
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 12 of 17 PageID 259
`
`
`
`These implausible allegations — that the only uses of the accused products are providing
`
`“interactive vector graphics” over a network or “delegat[ing] the production” of shapes — ignore
`
`the panoply of other uses of the accused products. These allegations ignore the obvious
`
`noninfringing use of phones for making calls or the use of tablets and notebooks for performing
`
`word processing. These allegations ignore the applications other than Google Maps and Chrome
`
`Browser that are available on these devices, such as calendars, calculators, alarm clocks, Google
`
`Play (for downloading games, books, and movies), Google+ (for social connections), and
`
`thousands of others. These allegations ignore the use of Google Maps and Chrome Browser to
`
`download non-vector graphics, despite the fact that the Amended Complaint recognizes the
`
`possibility of downloading non-vector graphics, such as “Web pages” with “‘embedded bit
`
`mapped graphics.’” (Id. ¶ 10.) These allegations ignore the use of Google Maps and Chrome
`
`Browser to download non-interactive vector graphics. And they ignore the other uses of Google
`
`Maps in addition to accessing an external shape and delegating the production of an external
`
`shape, such as downloading and displaying text or graphics that do not make use of external
`
`shapes.
`
`Micrografx’s contradictory allegations of no substantial non-infringing use — one for the
`
`’854/’732 Patents and another for the ’633 Patent — are further proof of their implausibility.
`
`Micrografx argues on the one hand that the accused products have “no use apart from or that
`
`does not include downloading over a network and rendering an interactive vector object as
`
`claimed.” (Id. ¶¶ 28, 37.) Micrografx argues on the other hand that the same accused products
`
`have “no use apart from or that does not include the functionality to access and/or operable to
`
`access an external shape stored outside the application and delegate the production of a graphical
`
`image of the external shape as claimed.” (Id. ¶ 46.) Micrografx has thus alleged at least two
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 8
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 13 of 17 PageID 260
`
`
`
`uses. These two alleged uses make impossible Micrografx’s allegation that the accused products
`
`permit “no use apart” from the single use that Micrografx identified.
`
`Courts presented with similarly implausible allegations grant motions to dismiss. In re
`
`Bill of Lading is one example. The plaintiff alleged that if the accused products were used in a
`
`certain way, they would have no substantial non-infringing uses. 681 F.3d at 1338. The Federal
`
`Circuit reasoned that such allegations do not demonstrate that the products performed only the
`
`infringing method. Id. The Federal Circuit further held that the other uses of the accused
`
`products were unrelated to the claims of the asserted patent, and, therefore, claim construction
`
`was not necessary to find that the products had other non-infringing uses. Id. The Federal
`
`Circuit thus affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s contributory infringement claims. Id. at 1339.
`
`District courts apply In re Bill of Lading and grant motions to dismiss when plaintiffs
`
`assert “no substantial non-infringing use” but are unable to plausibly allege that the accused
`
`products “can perform the infringing method and only the infringing method.” Id. at 1338
`
`(emphasis removed). For example, in Brandywine, the court held that the plaintiff’s allegation
`
`that the products accused of infringement — mobile phones — had no substantial non-infringing
`
`uses failed because it was “implausible” that mobile phones could only infringe the asserted
`
`patents’ claims of “message storage” solutions and did not have substantial non-infringing uses,
`
`such as making phone calls. 912 F. Supp. 2d at 1349. Because Micrografx, like the plaintiff in
`
`Brandywine, cannot plausibly allege that the accused products have no substantial non-infringing
`
`uses, Micrografx’s claims for contributory infringement should be dismissed.
`
`3.
`
`Micrografx failed to adequately plead that Defendants possessed the
`specific intent to induce infringement
`
`“To survive [a] motion to dismiss” on a claim of induced infringement, the complaint
`
`“must contain facts plausibly showing that [the defendants] specifically intended their customers
`
`to infringe the [patent] and knew that the customer’s acts constituted infringement.” Bill of
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 9
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 40 Filed 12/23/13 Page 14 of 17 PageID 261
`
`
`
`Lading, 681 F.3d at 1339. Specific intent “requires more than just intent to cause the acts that
`
`produce direct infringement. Beyond that threshold knowledge, the inducer must have an
`
`affirmative intent to cause direct infringement.” DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293,
`
`1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`Micrografx’s allegation of specific intent regarding the ’854 Patent and the ’732 Patent is
`
`that Google and/or Motorola provide phones, tablets, and notebooks that include two
`
`applications (Google Maps and Google Chrome Browser) and provide maintenance, conduct
`
`advertising, and provide instructions manuals and other information and materials that promote
`
`or demonstrate use of the accused products. (Dkt. No. 39 ¶¶ 26, 35.) Micrografx makes the
`
`same allegations regarding the ’633 Patent. (Id. ¶ 44.)
`
`Absent from these boilerplate allegations are any plausible facts that Google or Motorola
`
`knew that their customers’ acts constituted infringement. Also missing are any allegations that
`
`Google or Motorola intended such infringement. To the contrary, the only facts alleged are that
`
`Google and Motorola sold, advertised, serviced, and otherwise engaged in legitimate business
`
`regarding the accused products.
`
`Courts faced with such allegations grant motions to dismiss. For example, in U.S.
`
`Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., the court granted a motion to dismiss because
`
`plaintiff’s “allegations that [defendant] ‘supplies’ infringing systems and components and
`
`provides ‘instructions’ to its customers who allegedly infringe do not create a reasonable
`
`inference of inducement.” No. 12-00366, slip op. at 6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2013). Similarly, in
`
`Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., the court granted a motion to dismiss, finding that
`
`the plaintiff’s “allegations, if taken as true, do not constitute evidence –– even circumstantial
`
`evidence –– of ‘culpable conduct’ that was ‘directed to encouraging another’s infringement’”;
`
`“[i]nstead, the allegations, taken as true, merely indicate that [the defendant] provided other
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`PAGE 10
`DEFENDANTS GOOGL