Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 6:20-cv-1211-ADA
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”),
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
` PATENT CASE
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO NVIDIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS UNDER
`THE ’538, ’305, AND ’248 PATENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COGNIZABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(g)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: March 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alex Chan
`Timothy Devlin
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`Henrik D. Parker
`hparker@devlinlawfirm.com   
`Alex Chan (State Bar No. 24108051)
`achan@devlinlawfirm.com   
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 
`1526 Gilpin Avenue 
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806 
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010 
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, 
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The High Bar for a Motion to Dismiss ............................................................................. 1
`
`The Broad Reach of Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) ......................................... 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 3
`
`The ’538 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon Wafers, and
`A.
`Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact ........................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`NVIDIA’s Arguments Find No Support From Momenta ............................................. 5
`
`NVIDIA’s Arguments Find No Support From Bayer .................................................. 5
`
`The ’305 and ’248 Patents Involve the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon
`B.
`Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact ....................................................................... 6
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`In All Events, Fact Issues Preclude Dismissal ................................................................. 8
`
`At Worst, Rather Than Dismissing the Complaint, Leave to Amend Should Be Granted
` .......................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. v. Biocorp, Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 9
`
`Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................. 2, 3, 8
`
`Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc.
`394 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc.
`888 F.3 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`82 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................. 2, 3, 8
`
`Encoditech, LLC v. Citizen Watch Co. of Am.
`C.A. No. 18-1335-XR,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105833 (W.D. Tex. June 25, 2019)....................................................... 2
`
`Frye v. Anadarko Petro. Corp.,
`953 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Griggs v. Hinds Junior Coll.,
`563 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1977) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Lone Star Motor Imp., Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp.,
`288 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1961) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.,
`565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Millennium Cryogenic Techs., Ltd. v. Weatherford Artificial Lift Sys.,
`Civil Action No. H-12-0890-KPE,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196638 (S.D. Tex. 2012) ...................................................................... 9
`
`Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc.
`809 F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................... 5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 14
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`653 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Philip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Dell Computer Corp.,
`519 Fed. Appx. 998 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`Skinner v. Switzer
`562 U.S. 521 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ............................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ............................................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 5 of 14
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`NVIDIA Corporation’s (“NVIDIA”) Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Claims Under the
`
`’538, ’305, and ’248 Patents Because They Are Not Cognizable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (Dkt.
`
`13 - “Motion”) misconstrues both the nature of the patents at issue and applicable law. Each of
`
`the patents that NVIDIA seeks to dismiss—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,676,538 (the “’538 patent”),
`
`6,907,305 (the “’305 patent”) and 6,968,248 (the “’248 patent”) (collectively “Asserted
`
`Patents”)—describes the manufacture of semiconductors in excruciating detail and claims
`
`methods used for, and during, the manufacture of semiconductors including semiconductor
`
`wafers, which are physical products falling squarely within the scope of § 271(g). NVIDIA’s
`
`barebones motion with little factual or legal argument, coupled with its artificial attempt to limit
`
`the Court’s analysis to isolated claimed features and its misapplication of the relevant law, falls
`
`far short of the high bar necessary to obtain dismissal. The Motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`The High Bar for a Motion to Dismiss
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal of a complaint or cause of
`
`action is appropriate if it fails to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
`
`When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “[t]he court must accept all well-
`
`pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Frye v.
`
`Anadarko Petro. Corp., 953 F.3d 285, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Lormand v. US Unwired,
`
`Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009)) Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir.
`
`2009);1 see also Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal
`
`quotations omitted); see also Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570. The question resolved is “whether
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis in this brief has been added.
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 6 of 14
`
`[the] complaint was sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold”—not whether the plaintiff
`
`will ultimately prevail. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011). Pleadings should be
`
`construed broadly in light of the allegations as a whole, and the facts pled should be viewed
`
`expansively in light of the liberal pleading standards. See, e.g., Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-
`
`Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288-90 (5th Cir. 2004).
`
`This Court has held, based on Federal Circuit precedent, that identification of specific
`
`products, when coupled with allegations that defendants make, sell, offer to sell, import or use
`
`the accused products in the United States the accused products and that each accused product
`
`satisfies each and every limitation of at least one patent claim is enough to meet “the relatively
`
`low threshold for stating a claim for patent infringement.” Encoditech, LLC v. Citizen Watch Co.
`
`of Am., C.A. No. 18-1335-XR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105833, at *10 (W.D. Tex. June 25, 2019)
`
`(citing Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc., 888 F.3 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`
`B.
`
`The Broad Reach of Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g)
`
`Section 271(g) attaches liability to the import of sale of products made by a patented
`
`process. “By enacting the Process Patent Amendments Act, the principal portion of which is
`
`codified as 35 U.S.C. § 271 (g), Congress changed the law by making it an act of infringement to
`
`import into the United States, or to sell or use within the United States ‘a product which is made
`
`by a process patented in the United States[.]’” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 82 F.3d
`
`1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .
`
`Congress created liability under § 271(g) to ensure that holders of process patents and
`
`domestic manufacturers were not disadvantaged relative to holders of device and system claims
`
`or foreign manufacturers, and the courts interpret “made by” in view of these policy goals.
`
`Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ; Bio-Technology
`
`General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1996) , cert. denied, 519 U.S.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 7 of 14
`
`911 (1996); Eli Lilly & Co. 82 F.3d at 1578; 5 Chisum on Patents § 16.02[6][d][iv] (2019). The
`
`Federal Circuit has interpreted the term “made” as used in § 271(g) to mean “manufactured” and
`
`the term “product” to mean a “physical article.” Bayer AG, 340 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Section 271(g) is applied broadly. When enacting the Process Patent Amendments Act
`
`(“PPAA”), Congress specifically declined to require that a product be made “directly” from a
`
`patented process in order to infringe under § 271(g). See Eli Lilly & Co., 82 F.3d at 1576. “In
`
`enacting the PPAA, Congress did not include a positive definition of ‘made by.’ The court must
`
`interpret ‘made by’ in light of the PPAA’s policy to afford meaningful protection for owners of
`
`patents claiming processes.” 5 Chisum on Patents § 16.02[6][d][iv] (2019) (citing Bayer, 340
`
`F.3d at 1368; Bio-Technology General Corp, 80 F.3d at 1561). “The connection between a
`
`patented process and a product can vary from immediate . . . to remote[.]” 5 Chisum on Patents §
`
`16.02[6][d][iv] (2019).
`
`Consequently, whether a product is “made by” a patent should be interpreted expansively
`
`to include products made through the “agency,” “efficacy,” “work,” “participation,” “means or
`
`instrumentality,” “medium,” or “operation” of a process. Bayer at 1378, n.12 (citing Webster’s
`
`and Random House dictionaries).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Contrary to NVIDIA’s misdirection and conclusory allegations, each of the three Patents
`
`at Issue relates to the making of physical products. As such, Ocean properly pleaded a cause of
`
`action under § 271(g). At worst, fact issues preclude dismissal at this time.
`
`A.
`
`The ’538 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon
`Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact
`
`In its incomplete summary of the ’538 patent (Dkt. 13 at 4), NVIDIA ignores the multiple
`
`ways in which the patented process directly controls the processing tools that create
`
`semiconductor wafers. The ’538 patent claims “[a] method, comprising: performing in a
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 8 of 14
`
`computer a fault detection analysis relating to processing of a workpiece.” (Dkt. 1-7 (’538
`
`patent) at 13:28-30.) This “workpiece comprises a semiconductor wafer.” (Claim 2.) The fault
`
`detection analysis includes determining “a relationship of a parameter relating to said fault
`
`detection analysis to a detected fault,” including a relationship between at least one of
`
`“pressure,” “temperature,” “data,” “humidity,” or “gas flow.” (See claim 9.) The performance
`
`of the fault detection method is not undertaken for mere testing or data collection purposes, but
`
`rather “relat[es] to processing of a subsequent workpiece. . . .” (Id. at 13:38.) Thus, on its face,
`
`the method recited in claim 1 is one that directly implicates the manufacture of semiconductor
`
`wafers.
`
`This is confirmed by the specification, which further delineates the ways in which the
`
`patented methods involve not only collection and analysis of information from the manufacturing
`
`process, but also control of manufacturing tools used for manufacturing semiconductor wafers.
`
`For example, as part of the weighting process, “the processing system may perform subsequent
`
`processes upon the semiconductor wafers based upon the newly adjusted parameter-weighting .
`
`. . .” (Id. at 11:7-9.) Figure 7 similarly indicates that the “perform subsequent process step”
`
`follows the “perform dynamic PCA weighting process” step. (Id. at Fig. 7.)
`
`The specification also illustrates that fault detection is an integral part of the
`
`manufacturing process, not a function that occurs at a spatial or temporal remove. For example,
`
`“[t]he system 300 also comprises a fault detection unit 380, which is capable of performing
`
`various fault detection associated with the processing tool 310 when processing the
`
`semiconductor wafers 105.” (Id. at 7:3-6.) Similarly, “in some embodiments . . . the control
`
`strategies taught by the present invention can be applied to virtually any of the semiconductor
`
`manufacturing tools on the factory floor.” (Id. at 12:52-61.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 9 of 14
`
`Indeed, the ability to improve the functioning of process tools is among the principal
`
`benefits cited in the patent. For example, the patent “utilizing embodiments of the present
`
`invention, a more effective and accurate process adjustment may be performed to achieve more
`
`accurate semiconductor wafer 105 characteristics and improved yields.” (Id. at 12:47-51.)
`
`1.
`
`NVIDIA’s Arguments Find No Support From Momenta
`
`All of these facts make it clear that the ’538 patent is not directed to testing, as NVIDIA
`
`argues. (Dkt. 13 at 4.) The process in Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc. 809
`
`F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 2015), involved testing performed on a sampling of “intermediate products,”
`
`at the end of which the products were destroyed. (Id. at 616-17.) Similarly, the process in Philip
`
`M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Dell Computer Corp., 519 Fed. Appx. 998 (Fed. Cir. 2013), related
`
`to testing of motherboards to determine whether they complied with relevant standards. (Id. at
`
`1005.) Neither of those cases apply here where the claims are not limited to, or even specifically
`
`drawn to, the production of test wafers or intermediate wafers. The claimed methods are also not
`
`directed to certification of already completed products. Rather, the ’538 patent is directed to
`
`processing results in the production of wafers that can be (and are/were) imported and/or sold,
`
`which is consistent with the policy reasons underlying § 271(g).
`
`2.
`
`NVIDIA’s Arguments Find No Support From Bayer
`
`NVIDIA also contends that the ’538 patent is not covered by 271(g) because it “detects
`
`and generates data about the fault detection process—it does not itself manufacture the end
`
`products.” (Dkt. 13 at 5.) In other words, NVIDIA argues that § 271(g) liability only attaches
`
`where the patented method directly claims the physical manufacture of that product. But Bayer
`
`provides no such support. Bayer relates to the question of whether information developed using
`
`a patented process is a “product” within the scope of § 271(g), such that importation of that
`
`information is an infringement. Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1370-71. The court in Bayer held that the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 10 of 14
`
`importation of information was not importation of a “product,” because information is not
`
`“manufactured” at all. (Id. at 1377.) Here, what is imported is not information, but the physical
`
`products that a manufactured using these patented processes.
`
`Notably, Bayer itself articulates this distinction, demonstrating why the asserted patents
`
`are all within the scope of § 271(g). The Bayer court separately analyzed claims involving a
`
`physical drug, holding that it “is beyond dispute that a drug is a physical product that has been
`
`manufactured.” (Id.) As with the drug in Bayer, it is beyond dispute that the semiconductor
`
`wafers described in the ’538 patent, and the products alleged to infringe, are physical products,
`
`and that the ’538 patent relates directly to the manufacture of such products.
`
`B.
`
`The ’305 and ’248 Patents Involve the Making of Physical Products Such as
`Silicon Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact
`
`NIVIDA argues that the ’305 and ’248 patents “address ‘scheduling’—when products are
`
`made—and do not result in any change to or transformation of the end products.” (Dkt. 13 at 5.)
`
`This ignores the fact that scheduling semiconductor fabrication processes is an indispensable part
`
`of semiconductor manufacturing. Without a means of scheduling, for example, semiconductor
`
`lots and individual wafers for production, it would be impossible to coordinate the complex
`
`operational steps and multiple tools used in a manufacturing facility. As such, NVIDIA’s
`
`contention that these patents “do not result in the manufacture of any products” (Dkt. 13 at 5) is
`
`wrong.
`
`As discussed in the specifications, the semiconductor fabrication process “involves
`
`processing a number of wafers through a series of fabrication tools” in which “[l]ayers of
`
`materials are added to, removed from, and/or treated on a semiconducting substrate during
`
`fabrication to create the integrated circuits.” (Dkt. 1-2 (’305 patent) at 1:38-42; Dkt. 1-4 (’248
`
`patent) at 1:41-45.) “Efficient management of a facility for manufacturing products such as
`
`semiconductor chips requires monitoring various aspects of the manufacturing process” and
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 11 of 14
`
`“track[ing] the amount of raw materials on hand, the status of work-in-process and the status and
`
`availability of machines and tools at every step in the process.” (Dkt. 1-2 at 2:10-16; Dkt. 1-4 at
`
`2:12-18.)
`
`The ’305 and ’248 patents both describe ways “for efficiently scheduling and controlling
`
`the lots [] of wafers [] through the fabrication process,” such as “schedul[ing] ahead for each lot
`
`[] one or more operations on a specified qualified process tool 115, including . . . making
`
`optimizing decisions such as running an incomplete batch as opposed to waiting for an
`
`approaching lot,” and “schedule[ing] and initiat[ing] activities such as lot transport and
`
`processing.” (Dkt. 1-2 at 6:45-48 and 6:65-7:11; Dkt. 1-4 at 6:47-50 and 6:67-7:13.) As is
`
`evident, each of these processes does more than just “schedule[] an action in response” (Dkt. 13
`
`at 6.)
`
`This teaching is not limited to the specification; it is also manifested in the claims
`
`themselves. For example, each claim 1 of the ’305 and ’248 patents recites “a method for
`
`scheduling in an automated manufacturing environment,” including “automatically detecting
`
`an occurrence of a predetermined event in an integrated, automated process flow,” which is a
`
`“process flow [for] fabricat[ing] semiconductor devices.” (Dkt. 1-2 at 5:3-4; Dkt. 1-4 at 5:5-6.)
`
`This “process flow comprises a portion of a semiconductor manufacturing facility.” (See Claim
`
`43 of the ’305 patent.) Several of the dependent claims also elaborate on the types of events
`
`detected during manufacturing at the “semiconductor manufacturing facility.”
`
`For example, claim 7 of the ’305 patent and claim 5 of the ’248 patent specify the
`
`“predetermined event” to include “a machine becoming available, . . . a chamber a chamber
`
`going down, a chamber becoming available, a change in machine capabilities, a lot arriving at a
`
`machine, . . . a lot wafer count changed, a lot process operation changed, and a lot departing a
`
`machine.” Other dependent claims (e.g., claim 9 of the ’305 patent and claim 7 of the ’248
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 12 of 14
`
`patent) also focus on possible actions taken in view of a detected event that directly impacts
`
`manufacturing, including “adding new processing capabilities” and “deleting old processing
`
`capabilities” “of a machine.” (Dkt. 1-2 at Table 1; Dkt. 1-4 at Table 1.)
`
`Thus, contrary to NVIDIA’s contention (Dkt. 13 at 5), the ‘scheduling’ method as
`
`described in both the ’305 and ’248 patents governs not only when to take certain
`
`manufacturing actions but also what manufacturing actions to take in making the physical
`
`products. It dictates when and how, for example, the wafers, lots, and tools interact to ensure
`
`successful manufacturing of semiconductor wafers.
`
`NVIDIA also raises issues of fact when it argues that Ocean’s claim charts “do not point
`
`to any action beyond scheduling activities.” (Dkt. 13 at 7, fn. 1.) In so doing, NVIDIA
`
`pointedly ignores sections of the ’305 claim charts that indicate tool control, such as the camLine
`
`ECoFrame module’s “[i]nformation forwarding and control of production line actions” (Dkt. 1-
`
`14 at 8) “[o]ptional equipment control” (id. at 8) and “SEC (Statistical Equipment Control) in
`
`combination with LineWorks SPACE or other SPC systems” (id. at 8), as well as its ability to,
`
`for example, “download, upload or select” “recipe[s]” and “control [] shop floor equipment”—
`
`all of which are “action[s] beyond scheduling activities.”
`
`C.
`
`In All Events, Fact Issues Preclude Dismissal
`
`While, as discussed above, the claims of the Patents at Issue fall within the scope of §
`
`271(g) as a matter of law, at least one fact issue exists regarding the commercial viability of
`
`producing the accused products without use of the patented methods. This fact issue also
`
`precludes dismissal of the challenged causes of action.
`
`A product is considered “made by” a patented process when the use of that process is
`
`needed to make the process commercially viable, independent of the exact role played by the
`
`patented method in the manufacture of an accused product. See, e.g., Eli Lilly & Co., 82 F.3d at
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 13 of 14
`
`1575; Bio-Technology Gen. Corp., 80 F.3d at 1561; Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 653 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 1016, 1026 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Here, the benefits of the claimed methods do not relate to
`
`some product that is remote to the accused products, but instead relate to the quality and cost of
`
`the final semiconductor products accused in this action.
`
`Moreover, whether a patent’s claims are sufficiently tied to the accused products to
`
`impose § 271(g) liability is a classic fact question reserved for the trier of fact. Millennium
`
`Cryogenic Techs., Ltd. v. Weatherford Artificial Lift Sys., Civil Action No. H-12-0890-KPE,
`
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196638, at *8 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (holding that “issues regarding whether
`
`the refurbished stators are ‘made by’ the patented process. . . are material fact issues that are, and
`
`should remain, within the province of the fact finder in this case”) (citing Biotec Biologische
`
`Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`
`While NVIDIA’s motion should be denied as a matter of law, Ocean should, at a minimum, be
`
`entitled to discovery on these issues before any further consideration is undertaken.
`
`D.
`
`At Worst, Rather Than Dismissing the Complaint, Leave to Amend Should
`Be Granted
`
`Should the Court be inclined to rule in NVIDIA’s favor on any issue, Ocean instead
`
`should be granted leave to amend the Complaint rather than having it dismissed outright.
`
`Indeed, this Court has the power to sua sponte grant leave to amend the Complaint as justice
`
`requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Lone Star Motor Imp., Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp., 288 F.2d 69,
`
`75 (5th Cir. 1961). Granting leave to amend is especially appropriate in the context of
`
`dismissing for failure to state a claim. Griggs v. Hinds Junior Coll., 563 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir.
`
`1977).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, NVIDIA’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01211-ADA Document 17 Filed 03/26/21 Page 14 of 14
`
`Dated: March 26, 2021
`
`/s/ Alex Chan
`Timothy Devlin
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com   
`Henrik D. Parker
`hparker@devlinlawfirm.com
`Alex Chan  
`State Bar No. 24108051  
`achan@devlinlawfirm.com   
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 
`1526 Gilpin Avenue 
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806 
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010 
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251 
`  
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, 
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 26, 2021, I caused a copy of this document to be served by
`
`transmitting it via e-mail or electronic transmission to counsel of record for Defendant.
`
`/s/ Alex Chan
`Alex Chan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`