Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SILICON LABORATORIES INC.
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-1214
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT SILICON LABORATORIES INC.’ S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`101941765.2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................. 5
`A. Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) ........................................................................5
`B. 35 U.S.C. 271(g) Requires the Manufacture of a Product, Not Information ...6
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 7
`A. Ocean’s Contention of Infringement by All Silicon Labs Products Does Not
`Cross the Line Between Possible and Plausible Infringement .........................7
`B. Ocean Has Not Put Silicon Labs on Notice as to Non-Accused Fabs and
`Unnamed Tools ................................................................................................9
`1. Allegations as to non-accused fabs should be dismissed ..................... 9
`2. Allegations as to unnamed tools should be dismissed ....................... 10
`C. Ocean’s Allegations of Induced Infringement are Insufficient ......................12
`1. Ocean does not allege Silicon Labs’ knowledge of fab processes or
`equipment used ......................................................................................... 12
`2. Ocean’s boilerplate and conclusory assertions are inadequate .......... 13
`D. Boilerplate Allegations of Willful Infringement are Insufficient ...................14
`E. Asserted Patents Claiming Generation of Information Cannot Support
`Infringement Under 271(g) .............................................................................16
`1.
`’402 patent, Claim 1 ........................................................................... 17
`2.
`’538 patent, Claim 1 ........................................................................... 18
`3.
`’305 patent, Claim 1 and ’248 patent, Claim 1 .................................. 19
`4. Dismissal of related indirect infringement allegations ....................... 19
`F. System Claims Cannot Support a Cause of Action Under 271(g) .................20
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`No. W:13-CV-362, 2014 WL 12551207 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2014)................................13, 14
`
`American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.,
`283 U.S. 1 (1931) ...........................................................................................................6, 17, 19
`
`Artrip v. Ball Corp.,
`735 F. App’x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .....................................................................2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16
`
`Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................12
`
`Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc.,
`No. 6:07-CV-559, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1644 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009) ..............................8
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................12
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`82 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................6
`
`Estech Sys. v. Regions Fin. Corp.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00322-ADA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200484 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28,
`2020) ....................................................................................................................................7, 11
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .............................................................................................................16
`
`Inhale, Inc v. Gravitron, LLC,
`No. 1:18-CV-762-LY, 2018 WL 7324886 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018) ......................14, 15, 16
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) .............................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`M & C Innovations, LLC v. Igloo Prods. Corp.,
`No. 4:17-CV-2372, 2018 WL 4620713 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 31, 2018) ..........................................16
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................11
`
`Meetrix IP, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 1:18-CV-309-LY, 2018 WL 8261315 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018) ..................................15
`
`Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA Inc.,
`809 F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................6, 7, 17
`
`Parity Networks, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00207-ADA, 2019 WL 3940952 (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2019) ..............................14
`
`Soar Tools, LLC v. Mesquite Oil Tools, Inc.,
`No. 5:19-CV-243-H, 2020 WL 5500238 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2020) .....................................11
`
`Valinge Innovations AB v. Halstead New England Corp.,
`No. 16-1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2411218 (D. Del. May 29, 2018) ......................................14
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .......................................................................................................12, 13, 14, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(g) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ...............................................................................1, 5, 7, 9, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant Silicon Laboratories Inc.
`
`(“Silicon Labs”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff Ocean Semiconductor LLC’s (“Ocean”) claims for
`
`infringement in its Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”). Dkt. 1.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Complete dismissal (and at a minimum significant streamlining) is appropriate now in this
`
`seven-patent case. Ocean accuses essentially every Silicon Labs product of infringing each of
`
`seven patents, but the Complaint omits key factual allegations needed to plausibly allege such
`
`widespread infringement. Additionally, for four of the asserted patents, Ocean’s claims under
`
`35 U.S.C. 271(g) do not fit the narrow requirements of the statute, which concerns importation of
`
`“a product which is made by a process patented in the United States.” Silicon Labs should not be
`
`made to defend against implausible and legally unsupportable allegations of infringement.
`
`Ocean’s Complaint identifies five tools allegedly used by TSMC—a Silicon Labs contract
`
`manufacturer—that purportedly practice the methods in Ocean’s seven asserted patents. From
`
`here, Ocean makes the factually unsupported leap to concluding that third party TSMC uses at
`
`least four of the five tools during the manufacture of all of Silicon Labs’ “semiconductor products
`
`and devices,” i.e., arguably every single product sold by Silicon Labs. Compl. at ¶¶ 11, 15, 17,
`
`19. Indeed, Ocean’s Complaint never attempts to plausibly tie TSMC’s purported use of the
`
`identified tools to the creation and importation of any actual Silicon Labs product, much less all
`
`of them. Further, Ocean blanketly alleges that other, unnamed chip manufacturers do likewise,
`
`again without any plausible factual allegation connecting the tools to Silicon Labs’ products.
`
`Silicon Labs is not the fabricator of any of the Accused Products, and Ocean makes no
`
`such allegation. Silicon Labs does not own the tools, run the tools, or perform the fabrication
`
`process of which Ocean complains. Indeed, Ocean does not even allege that Silicon Labs had any
`
`knowledge of the tools third party TSMC uses to manufacture its products, much less the detailed
`
`101941765.2
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`operation of such tools sitting overseas. Rather than asserting its claims against the vendors of
`
`tools that allegedly practice the patented methods, Ocean jumps to conclusions two or more levels
`
`down the manufacturing and supply chain to accuse a product company (Silicon Labs) of
`
`infringement, without facts that plausibly support these inferential leaps.
`
`The Supreme Court’s established Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards obligate a patentee to
`
`plead a case that is plausible, not merely possible. Ocean’s Complaint—based on unsupported
`
`conclusions instead of plausible facts—falls short. To survive, Ocean’s Complaint must include
`
`plausible factual allegations indicating the Accused Products are manufactured with the identified
`
`tools, but that is not the case. By simply assuming infringement of every Silicon Labs product
`
`imported into the United States, Ocean crosses the line from a well-pled complaint into
`
`unpermitted speculation. The Federal Rules “do[] not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff
`
`armed with nothing more than conclusions,” such as Ocean. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-
`
`679 (2009). For this reason, respectfully, Ocean’s allegations of infringement should be dismissed
`
`in their entirety.
`
`Independent of Ocean’s failure to plausibly plead its case in its entirety, Ocean’s charges
`
`of Section 271(g) infringement for at least four1 of the Asserted Patents are not legally cognizable.
`
`Section 271(g) is a narrow, special-purpose statute that only applies to process claims whose
`
`implementation results in the manufacture of a good. A method claim whose implementation
`
`results in the mere generation of information cannot be enforced through a Section 271(g) charge
`
`of infringement, particularly where the resulting information is not even alleged to be imported
`
`into the United States. This is the case here, as four asserted patents claim the generation of
`
`
`1 Mindful of the stage of the case and associated burdens, this motion focuses on the four most
`egregious patents, but Defendant reserves the right to contend the remaining patents also cannot
`apply to a claim under Section 271(g).
`
`101941765.2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`information with no impact on the physical manufacturing process, let alone the products
`
`ultimately accused of infringement.
`
`Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 6,725,402 (’402 patent”) concerns the receipt and processing
`
`of “operational state data of a processing tool.” U.S. Patent No. 8,676,538 (’538 patent”) concerns
`
`“fault detection.” And, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,907,305 (’305 patent”) and 6,968,248 (’248 patent”)
`
`claim “scheduling an action” in response to “detecting an occurrence of a predetermined event.”
`
`These claims generally cover detection or generation of information about a processing
`
`environment, not processes “used directly in the manufacture of the product,” as the law requires.
`
`See, e.g., Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he process
`
`must be used directly in the manufacture of the product . . .”). For this independent reason,
`
`Ocean’s infringement allegations for the ’402, ’538, ’305, and ’248 patents are insufficient and
`
`must be dismissed.
`
`Various other deficiencies in Ocean’s Complaint warrant partial dismissal in several
`
`respects, and they are detailed more fully below.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Ocean has asserted Silicon Labs’ infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(g) for each of seven
`
`patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 6,660,651, 6,907,305, 6,725,402, 6,968,248, 7,080,330, 6,836,691, and
`
`8,676,538 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`Ocean’s Complaint never alleges that Silicon Labs manufactures the Accused Products or
`
`performs any of the claimed methods. Instead, the Complaint notes that Silicon Labs “contracts
`
`with third-party semiconductor fabricators or foundries (‘SILABS Foundry Partners’) that own,
`
`operate, or control semiconductor fabrication plants (‘fabs’).” Complaint at ¶ 8. The only such
`
`fab identified in the Complaint is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
`
`(“TSMC”). Id.
`
`101941765.2
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`Ocean alleges that TSMC uses each of several tools in its fabs: ASML’s TWINSCAN
`
`system hardware and software; camLine’s LineWorks system; Applied Materials’ E3 system; PDF
`
`Solutions’ Exensio system; and ASML’s YieldStar metrology and inspection system. Complaint
`
`at ¶¶ 9-20, 73, 93, 113, 133, 153, 174, 194. These are the only tools explicitly identified in the
`
`Complaint as allegedly meeting the limitations of the Asserted Patents’ claims, and the only fab
`
`explicitly alleged to use these tools is TSMC. There is not, however, any plausible, non-conclusory
`
`facts that tie the use of these tools to the accused products.
`
`A mapping of Ocean’s allegations regarding these tools is below:
`
`Patent
`
`Tool whose use is alleged to
`practice the patented method(s)
`
`6,660,651 ASML’s TWINSCAN system
`hardware and software
`6,907,305 camLine’s LineWorks system
`
`6,725,402 Applied Materials’ E3 system or
`PDF Solutions’ Exensio system
`6,968,248 camLine’s LineWorks system
`
`7,080,330 ASML YieldStar metrology and
`inspection system
`6,836,691 Applied Materials’ E3 system or
`PDF Solutions’ Exensio system
`8,676,538 Applied Materials’ E3 system or
`PDF Solutions’ Exensio system
`
`
`
`Fab
`alleged to
`use tool
`TSMC
`
`TSMC
`
`TSMC
`
`TSMC
`
`TSMC
`
`TSMC
`
`TSMC
`
`Silicon Labs’ products alleged
`to infringe
`
`All “semiconductor products . . .
`and integrated circuits”
`All “semiconductor products . . .
`and integrated circuits”
`All “semiconductor products . . .
`and integrated circuits”
`All “semiconductor products . . .
`and integrated circuits”
`All “semiconductor products . . .
`and integrated circuits”
`All “semiconductor products . . .
`and integrated circuits”
`All “semiconductor products . . .
`and integrated circuits”
`
`After arguing that various tools that TSMC could use allegedly meet the process claim
`
`limitations of the Asserted Patents, the Complaint jumps to the conclusion that four categories of
`
`Silicon Labs products infringe the Asserted Patents: “SILABS APC Products,” “SILABS
`
`Scheduling Products,” “SILABS TWINSCAN Products,” and “SILABS YieldStar Products.” Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 11, 15, 17, 19, 73, 93, 113, 133, 153, 174, 194. Despite enumerating these four separate
`
`categories of accused products, presumably to give the illusion of specificity, each category is
`
`101941765.2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`identically and broadly defined over two pages to include essentially every product sold by Silicon
`
`Labs:
`
`semiconductor products and devices, such as wireless products . . ., internet of
`things products . . ., infrastructure products . . ., broadcast products . . ., access
`products . . ., microcontrollers . . .,
`buffers . . .,
`oscillators . . .,
`clock
`generators . . .,
`jitter attenuators . . .,
`synchronous ethernet . . .,
`isolation
`products . . ., interface products (e.g., ethernet controllers, LC controllers, bridges),
`timing products (e.g., buffers, clock generators, oscillators, and network
`synchronizers), sensors (e.g., humidity, magnetic, optical, temperature, and
`biometric), audio & radio products (e.g., automotive tuners, and radios), power
`products (e.g., power management ICs, powered drivers, and PSE controllers), TV
`& video products (e.g., digital demodulators and TV tuners), modem & DAA
`products (e.g., voice modems), voice products (e.g., codec, proSLICs, and DAA),
`power over ethernet devices (e.g., power source equipment and powered device
`ICs)), and similar systems, products, devices, and integrated circuits . . .
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 11, 15, 17, 19 (collectively “Accused Products”) (emphases added; part numbers omitted
`
`for brevity). Nowhere does the Complaint allege any facts supporting its bare contention that any
`
`of these products is manufactured by TSMC using one or more of the enumerated tools.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`A court may dismiss an action that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 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.’” Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. at 678 (quoting 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.” Id. Courts “are not
`
`bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. Thus, “[t]hreadbare
`
`recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
`
`suffice.” Id. The plausibility standard, unlike the “probability requirement,” requires more than a
`
`sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
`
`101941765.2
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`B.
`
`35 U.S.C. 271(g) Requires the Manufacture of a Product, Not Information
`
`35 U.S.C. 271(g) creates a cause of action for infringement for the importation, sale, or use
`
`of a product manufactured according to a patented method, but only where (1) there is no
`
`infringement under Section 271(a); (2) the product produced by the claimed method is not
`
`substantially changed before importation; and (3) the product produced according to a claimed
`
`process is not a trivial component of something else. See 35 U.S.C. 271(g).
`
`In enacting this statute, Congress intended “to close a perceived loophole” that prevented
`
`patentees from enforcing their process patents when a product was manufactured overseas and
`
`then imported into the United States. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 82 F.3d 1568, 1571
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). “Congress was concerned solely with physical goods that had undergone
`
`manufacture.” Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Each
`
`and every reference [in legislative history] to the provision that became section 271(g) describes
`
`it as directed to manufacturing.” Id. at 1374. For this reason, the Federal Circuit has held “that in
`
`order for a product to have been ‘made by a process patented in the United States’ it must have
`
`been a physical article that was ‘manufactured’ and that the production of information is not
`
`covered.” Id. at 1377 (quoting 35 U.S.C. 271(g)).
`
`The Federal Circuit has “equated the word ‘made’ in § 271(g) with ‘manufacture.’”
`
`Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA Inc., 809 F.3d 610, 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Bayer,
`
`340 F.3d at 1373). “[T]he Supreme Court [has] defined the verb form of ‘manufacture’ as ‘the
`
`production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new
`
`forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.’” Bayer,
`
`340 F.3d at fn.4 (quoting American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 (1931))
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`101941765.2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`Method claims that concern only the testing of a product or intermediate substance do not
`
`constitute the manufacture of that product and are not enforceable under Section 271(g). See
`
`Momenta Pharm., 809 F.3d at 615 (“[I]it is more consonant with the language of the statute, as
`
`well as with this court’s precedent, to limit § 271(g) to the actual ‘ma[king]’ of a product, rather
`
`than extend its reach to methods of testing a final product or intermediate substance to ensure that
`
`the intended product or substance has in fact been made.” (alteration in original)); id. at 616
`
`(“‘[M]a[king]’ does not extend to testing to determine whether an already-synthesized drug
`
`substance possesses existing qualities or properties.” (second alteration in original)).
`
`Similarly, claims that concern the mere generation of information—such as “the
`
`identification and characterization of” a product—cannot support a cause of action for
`
`infringement under Section 271(g). See Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1370, 1377; id at 1368 (“[W]e conclude
`
`that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) is limited to physical goods that were manufactured
`
`and does not include information generated by a patented process.”). Such claims may be
`
`dismissed at the Rule 12(b) stage. Id. at 1378 (affirming dismissal at the Rule 12(b) stage where
`
`the asserted claim covered the generation of information, not the manufacture of a product).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Ocean’s Contention of Infringement by All Silicon Labs Products Does Not
`Cross the Line Between Possible and Plausible Infringement
`
`The Supreme Court draws an important distinction between allegations that are plausible,
`
`versus those that are merely possible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“The plausibility standard is not
`
`akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
`
`has acted unlawfully.” (emphasis added)). To satisfy Iqbal and Twombly in the context of a Section
`
`271(g) assertion, the plaintiff must plausibly demonstrate that the products whose importation,
`
`sale, or use are alleged to infringe were manufactured pursuant to the claimed process. Cf. Estech
`
`101941765.2
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`Sys. v. Regions Fin. Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00322-ADA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200484, at *6 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Oct. 28, 2020) (noting in the context of Section 271(a) “the pleading standards established by
`
`Twombly and Iqbal require a plausible inference that an accused device meets all of the limitations
`
`of the asserted claims.”). This is where Ocean’s Complaint fails, and dismissal is warranted.
`
`Here, Ocean’s Complaint indicates at best a conclusory possibility of infringement—
`
`namely that TSMC allegedly has access to certain tools, and TSMC manufactures products for
`
`Silicon Labs. But, the Complaint is devoid of plausible facts suggesting that TSMC actually uses
`
`the identified tools to manufacture the Accused Products. See supra at II (noting the complaint
`
`broadly accuses without limitation, inter alia, “semiconductor products and . . . integrated
`
`circuits”).
`
`Ocean simply concludes, without pleading plausible facts supporting that conclusion, that
`
`every Silicon Labs product is manufactured pursuant to the processes in the asserted patents:
`
`The ’402 Accused Products are manufactured by a process including all of the
`limitations of at least claim 1 of the ’402 patent. Each such product includes an
`integrated circuit fabricated or manufactured using, for example, the Applied
`Materials E3 system and/or PDF Solutions’ Exensio system.
`
`Complaint at ¶ 93 (emphases added); see also id. at ¶¶ 73, 113, 133, 153, 174, 194 (similar factually
`
`unsupported conclusions that each Accused Product is manufactured by TSMC using an
`
`enumerated tool). But, conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet Ocean’s pleading burden.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (noting “mere conclusory statements, do not suffice”).
`
`Ocean’s Complaint does not include plausible facts that support the conclusion that a single
`
`one of the Accused Products is manufactured according to any asserted method, much less all
`
`Silicon Labs’ products and all asserted methods.2 Ocean has not identified Silicon Labs’ product
`
`
`2 In the related context of preliminary infringement contentions, other courts have similarly held
`that “[a] party may not blindly accuse every product a defendant produces and expect to narrow
`its claims at its own convenience.” Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., No. 6:07-CV-559,
`
`101941765.2
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`documentation detailing characteristics one might anticipate finding in a product manufactured
`
`according to the claimed methods. Nor has Ocean included any “teardown” or other analysis of a
`
`particular product to demonstrate it was conceivably manufactured using the tools identified in the
`
`Complaint.3 Indeed, Ocean has not even attempted to define the characteristics imparted into an
`
`end product by the asserted methods or enumerated tools (much less find those characteristics in
`
`any Accused Product).
`
`In the end, the pleaded facts of tools that may be available to TSMC are at best “merely
`
`consistent” with Ocean’s bare conclusion that all of Silicon Labs’ products are manufactured using
`
`those tools, but that is not sufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Respectfully, Ocean’s broad
`
`infringement allegations should be dismissed as an unsupported and improper attempt to “unlock
`
`the doors of discovery . . . with nothing more than conclusions.” Id. at 678-679.
`
`B.
`Ocean Has Not Put Silicon Labs on Notice as to Non-Accused Fabs and
`Unnamed Tools
`
`In addition to warranting full dismissal for the reasons above, various other of Ocean’s
`
`pleading deficiencies warrant partial dismissal.
`
`1.
`
`Allegations as to non-accused fabs should be dismissed
`
`Underlying Ocean’s infringement allegations is the contention that Silicon Labs works with
`
`“third-party semiconductor fabricators or foundries (‘SILABS Foundry Partners’) that own,
`
`operate, or control semiconductor fabrication plants (‘fabs’) . . . to produce the Accused
`
`Products.” But, the only such foundry identified in the Complaint is TSMC. See, e.g., Complaint
`
`
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1644, at *15 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009). The same is true at the Rule 12
`stage.
`3 To the extent Ocean contends that its asserted methods are not the type of processes that one
`would expect to have a discernable impact on the resulting product, that merely underscores
`Silicon Labs’ below contention that several of the Asserted Patents are not appropriate vehicles
`for a Section 271(g) assertion.
`
`101941765.2
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`at ¶¶ 8-17, 19. Indeed, “TSMC” appears in the Complaint at least 47 times. In contrast, no other
`
`fab is ever identified, despite the fact that Silicon Labs’ other fabs are a matter of public record—
`
`even in the very presentation Ocean relies upon to allege a relationship between Silicon Labs and
`
`TSMC. See Complaint at ¶ 8 (citing “Silicon Labs Quality and Operations Overview,” at 21).
`
`Twombly rejected a pleading standard that “left open the possibility that a plaintiff might
`
`later establish some ‘set of [undisclosed] facts’ to support recovery,” but that is precisely what
`
`Ocean attempts through the Complaint’s vague definition of “SILABS Foundry Partners.” 550
`
`U.S. at 561 (alteration in original). Ocean’s allegations encompassing non-accused fabs with
`
`unknown tools is an even bigger inferential leap than its insufficient allegations as to TSMC
`
`described above. Supra at IV.A. Such allegations amount to nothing more than a fishing
`
`expedition, seeking information that is in the possession of unidentified third party fabs.
`
`Having failed to accuse any fab other than TSMC, Ocean’s allegations as to unidentified
`
`fabs should be dismissed. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561, 570.
`
`2.
`
`Allegations as to unnamed tools should be dismissed
`
`Ocean’s allegations as to unspecified tools similarly fails and should be dismissed. Ocean
`
`alleges infringement for Silicon Labs’ importation, sale, and use of products manufactured using
`
`ASML’s TWINSCAN system; camLine’s LineWorks system; Applied Materials’ E3 system; PDF
`
`Solutions’ Exensio system; and ASML’s YieldStar metrology and inspection system. Complaint
`
`at ¶¶ 9-20, 73, 93, 113, 133, 153, 174, 194. But, Ocean does not stop there. Ocean proceeds to
`
`further allege infringement premised upon the use of other, non-identified tools.
`
`For example, Ocean alleges infringement of the ’651 patent for the importation of
`
`“integrated circuits that are designed, developed, fabricated, and/or manufactured using the ASML
`
`TWINSCAN system and/or similar systems (e.g., with similar technical and functional
`
`101941765.2
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`features).” Complaint at ¶ 73 (emphasis added). No purported “similar system” is ever identified.
`
`Indeed, Ocean’s Complaint is replete with such instances of vaguely pled infringement:
`
` “other similar proprietary or third-party scheduling and dispatching platform
`hardware and/or software (e.g., with similar technical and functional
`features)” Complaint at ¶¶ 13, 133; see also id. at ¶¶ 15, 16 (similar);
` “other in-house or third-party advanced/automation process control system and
`platform hardware and/or software (e.g., with similar technical and functional
`features)” Complaint at ¶ 9;
` “and/or similar systems (e.g., with similar technical and functional features)”
`Complaint at ¶¶ 73, 83, 93, 96, 103, 153, 174, 177, 184, 194, 197, 204; and
` “or similar systems (e.g., with similar technical and functional features)”
`Complaint at ¶¶ 116, 123, 136, 143.
`
`If Ocean is aware of any such “other” or “similar systems,” it must identify them now so
`
`that Silicon Labs may mount a defense against these allegations. See McZeal v. Sprint Nextel
`
`Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting a patentee must “plead facts sufficient to
`
`place the alleged infringer on notice as to what he must defend.” (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570,
`
`n.10)); Artrip v. Ball Corp., 735 F. App’x 708, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (notice pleading standard not
`
`met where patentee alleged infringement “by use of one or more of the machines at least at the
`
`Bristol Plant”). This is particularly true where, as here, Ocean alleges infringement based on a
`
`third party’s use of tools in an overseas fab, as opposed any action by Silicon Labs that it may be
`
`able to reasonably investigate.
`
`This Court has found that the Twombly and Iqbal line of cases “require[s] a patent
`
`infringement Plaintiff to identify an accused product by name in most cases such that the
`
`Defendant is on notice of what specific conduct is alleged to constitute infringement.” Estech,
`
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200484, at *6 (citing Soar Tools, LLC v. Mesquite Oil Tools, Inc., No.
`
`5:19-CV-243-H, 2020 WL 5500238, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2020)). Where, as here, the claims
`
`of the Asserted Patents are allegedly embodied in the tools used to manufacture the Accused
`
`101941765.2
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 14 Filed 03/11/21 Page 16 of 26
`
`
`
`Products, rather than the products themselves, Iq