Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Western Digital Technologies, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-1216
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`PLAINTIFF OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC’S SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT
`WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: April 9, 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-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Patents Challenged by WDT Are Directly Related to the Manufacture of Physical
`A.
`Products and Are Encompassed Within the Scope of § 271(g) .................................................. 1
`
`1. WDT Mischaracterizes the Relevant Caselaw, Which Does Not Exclude the Asserted
`Patents from § 271(g) Infringement ........................................................................................ 1
`
`The Method of the ‘402 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of a Physical
`2.
`Product .................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`The Method of the ‘691 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of a Physical
`3.
`Product .................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`The Method of the ‘538 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of a Physical
`4.
`Product .................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`The Method of the ‘305 and 248 Patents Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of a
`5.
`Physical Product...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`The Method of the ‘330 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of a Physical
`6.
`Product .................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`The Method of the ‘651 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of a Physical
`7.
`Product .................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Ocean Asserts Knowledge and Specific Intent in the Complaint by Showing WDC’s
`B.
`Contacts with WDT and that WDT Contracts with Third-Party Importers to Infringe the
`Asserted Patents .......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`C. WDT’s Use of Case Law From the JMOL Stage Cannot Heighten the Pleading
`Standard for Willful infringement .............................................................................................. 9
`
`D. WDT Concedes that, in All Events, Fact Issues Preclude Dismissal and that, at Worst,
`Leave to Amend Should Be Granted Rather Than Dismissal................................................... 10
`
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`James v. J2 Cloud Servs., LLC,
`887 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc.,
`809 F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`408 F. Supp. 3d 819 (E.D. Tex. 2019) ........................................................................................ 9
`
`Parity Networks, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`C.A. No. 19-00207-ADA,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144094 (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2019) ................................................... 8, 9
`
`Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Dell Comput. Corp.,
`519 F. App’x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2013). ............................................................................................ 2
`
`RK Sols., LLC v. Vitajoy USA Inc.,
`No. 18-06608-CAS,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200681 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2018) ........................................................ 8
`
`Sharafabadi v. Univ. of Idaho,
`No. C09-1043JLR,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110904 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 27, 2009) ................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 14
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`WDT’s Reply continues either to mischaracterize or ignore relevant precedent while
`
`attempting to blur the early threshold requirements to survive a motion to dismiss. The cases,
`
`from this Court, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court, all support denial of WDT’s Motion
`
`to Dismiss.
`
`When properly analyzed both factually and legally, it is clear that the methods of the
`
`asserted patents fall squarely within the coverage of § 271(g), and Ocean’s pleading allegations
`
`more than sufficiently present plausible cases of indirect and willful infringement. Moreover, as
`
`conceded by WDT, fact issues would in all events preclude dismissal.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Patents Challenged by WDT Are Directly Related to the Manufacture of
`Physical Products and Are Encompassed Within the Scope of § 271(g)
`
`Mis-stating Ocean’s Opposition, WDT insists that Ocean’s position is: “because the
`
`patented processes are allegedly used ‘during’ production of the accused products, the processes
`
`allegedly ‘relate[] directly to the manufacture of [the] products.’” (Dkt. 20 at 1.) Ocean’s
`
`position, however, is far more robust, is supported by both the claims and the specifications of
`
`the patents, and is wholly in keeping with precedent, including the cases relied on by WDT
`
`(including Momenta and Phillip M. Adams).
`
`1. WDT Mischaracterizes the Relevant Caselaw, Which Does Not
`Exclude the Asserted Patents from § 271(g) Infringement
`
`WDT attempts a bait-and-switch by now focusing on cases it failed to expound on in its
`
`opening brief, and attacks Ocean for not addressing those cases in its Opposition (Dkt. 20 at 1).
`
`Analyzing these “newfound” cases, however, demonstrates why WDT originally cited them
`
`only in passing. While WDT now argues a blanket exclusion for “quality control and testing”
`
`based on these cases, that contention misapplies not only these newly-discussed cases, it ignores
`
`the significance of Bayer and other primary Federal Circuit precedent squarely on point.
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 5 of 14
`
`WDT broadly and repeatedly cites to Momenta in its arguments as to all seven challenged
`
`patents. Notably, WDT cites to only a single quote, which in WDT’s mind stands for the
`
`proposition that § 271(g) “does not extend to product testing, quality control or data generation.”
`
`(Dkt. 20 at each of 2-8, citing Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., 809 F.3d 610,
`
`616 (Fed. Cir. 2015).) Momenta, however, involved a testing process that was performed on
`
`samples of intermediate products and that destroyed the samples on which the tests were
`
`performed. Momenta, 809 F.3d at 616-17. As a result, there could never be any subsequent
`
`importation of any unit of product actually made using the patented invention.
`
`Unlike in Momenta, the patented methods recited in the asserted patents here are
`
`performed during manufacturing and on all wafers, and so the same wafers that are imported
`
`were themselves made using the patented methods. This alone distinguishes Momenta and
`
`WDT’s simplistic characterization of the decision as blanketly precluding “quality control” goes
`
`too far.
`
`WDT also repeatedly cites to Philip M. Adams, again focusing on a single quote: “’[t]he
`
`mere production of information is not covered by § 271(g),’ even if the information is
`
`‘integrated’ into a manufacturing process.” (Dkt. 20 at 2, citing Phillip M. Adams & Assocs.,
`
`LLC v. Dell Comput. Corp., 519 F. App’x 998, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Phillip M. Adams,
`
`however, the patent at issue was directed solely toward “discover[ing] a data corruption defect
`
`affecting Floppy Disk Controllers (“FDC”) in certain Super I/O computer chips.” Id., 519 F.
`
`App’x at 999. At no point was this defect discovery process incorporated into the manufacturing
`
`process. This is vastly different from the inventions of the patents here, as each of the patented
`
`methods are expressly involved in the manufacture of semiconductors.1
`
`
`1 Moreover, Phillip M. Adams concerned issues at the JMOL stage, not the pleading standard for
`a motion to dismiss.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 6 of 14
`
`Further, similar to Philip M. Adams, the plaintiff in WDT’s Sharafabadi opinion merely
`
`alleged that “the [Defendants] used the [patent at issue] as a research tool to test the
`
`characteristics of various yellow mustard seeds.” Sharafabadi v. Univ. of Idaho, No. C09-
`
`1043JLR, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110904, at *16-17 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 27, 2009). The patents
`
`at issue here, however, are not drawn to a research tool, nor are they used to merely test
`
`characteristics. The methods are actively employed as part of the manufacturing process to make
`
`physical products, namely semiconductor products, that are then imported and sold into the
`
`United States.
`
`Beyond all of these cases, WDT studiously ignores the most relevant parts of the Bayer
`
`decision while arguing that it is Ocean who fails to apply the case’s holding. (Dkt. 20 at n. 2.)
`
`The Bayer court held only that “used directly in the manufacture of the product” means more
`
`than just a patented research method that studies the characteristics of a drug. Bayer AG v.
`
`Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, the claimed method
`
`must do more than collect data which might eventually, at some point, be used to select products
`
`for future manufacture. The methods claimed in each of the asserted patents do far more—they
`
`are used directly in the manufacture of the physical semiconductor products. As such, Bayer
`
`fully supports a claim of infringement under § 271(g) for all of the asserted patents.
`
`2.
`
`The Method of the ‘402 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of
`a Physical Product
`
`Contrary to WDT’s assertion that the patented processes amount to nothing more than
`
`“fault-identification information” and “quality control” (Dkt. 20 at 3), the invention of the ’402
`
`patent is directed to methods and systems for manufacturing physical products (e.g., silicon
`
`wafers) by controlling processing tools (e.g., steppers) within a factory automation system.
`
`Indeed, WDT does not appear to dispute that the “predetermined action on a processing tool”
`
`recited in claim 1 is performed during the manufacturing of the physical products.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 7 of 14
`
`WDT’s assertion that “Ocean does not dispute that it failed to allege . . . that the patented
`
`process in asserted claim 1 results in any change to an accused product” (Dkt. 20 at 3)
`
`deliberately ignores Ocean’s Opposition arguments to the contrary. (Dkt. 19 at 5, see Dkt. 1 at ¶
`
`97.) Further, WDT’s argument that “predetermined actions . . . do not change any accused
`
`product” (Dkt. 20 at 4) is fundamentally flawed. In fact, it cannot be legitimately disputed that
`
`the claimed methods directly affect the manufacturing processes and, thus, the manufacturing of
`
`the wafers. The relationship between the patented process and the accused products is more than
`
`sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
`
`3.
`
`The Method of the ‘691 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of
`a Physical Product
`
`WDT’s argument for excluding the ‘691 patent from the scope of § 271(g) is essentially a
`
`carbon copy of its argument as to the ‘402 patent and is equally unavailing. Indeed, none of the
`
`other four defendants in parallel actions who filed motions to dismiss (Nvidia, NXP, STMicro,
`
`and Silicon Labs) argued that the ‘691 patent was not encompassed within § 271(g)’s scope.
`
`WDT’s assertion that the claims of the ‘691 patent “amount[] to nothing more than the
`
`process being used during the production of an accused product” ignores the interactivity
`
`between the patented method and the manufactured products. Claim 1 recites “conducting a
`
`process control activity related to one of the tools . . . .” (Dkt. 1-6 (’691 patent) at 8:27-28.) This
`
`activity “results in a change to the accused products.” For example, changing the “operating
`
`recipe” or controlling the “exposure time and energy” leads to different semiconductor patterns
`
`being formed on a semiconductor wafer during manufacturing. (See discussion Dkt. 19 at 9.)
`
`WDT is again incorrect in arguing that Ocean fails to allege “that the process in asserted
`
`claim 1 of the ’691 patent results in any change to an accused product.” (Dkt. 20 at 4.) Ocean’s
`
`allegations are consistent with the ’691 patent’s focus on physical articles, in particular
`
`semiconductor products made by WDT. The Complaint limits its accusations under § 271(g) to
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 8 of 14
`
`products made using the claimed methods, and expressly alleges that WDT “has directly
`
`infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’691 patent . . . by importing into the
`
`United States, and/or using, and/or selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, without
`
`authority or license, the ’691 Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).” (Dkt. 1 at ¶
`
`179.) WDT’s arguments fail.
`
`4.
`
`The Method of the ‘538 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of
`a Physical Product
`
`WDT’s argument for excluding the ‘538 patent from the scope of § 271(g) is no different
`
`than its arguments as to the ‘402 or ‘691 patents and, consequently, suffers from the same
`
`deficiencies. More than just occurring “‘during production’ of a workpiece,” the method of the
`
`‘538 patent involves the performance of certain actions while a wafer is being processed and,
`
`thus, relates directly to the manufacture of semiconductor wafers. Claims 1 and 2 explicitly
`
`recite “performing . . . a fault detection analysis relating to processing of a workpiece” where the
`
`“workpiece comprises a semiconductor wafer.” (Dkt. 1-7 (‘538 patent) at 13:29-41.)2 The fault
`
`detection analysis is used “to determine that a fault associated with said processing of said
`
`workpiece has occurred.” (Claim 15.) The resulting adjustment is then used for “processing of a
`
`subsequent workpiece” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Additionally, WDT’s repetitive assertion that Ocean does not allege “that the patented
`
`process in asserted claim 1 of the ’538 patent results in any change to the accused product” (Dkt.
`
`20 at 5) again fails based on the assertions in the Complaint. The Complaint limits its allegations
`
`under § 271(g) to products made using the claimed method and expressly alleges that WDT “has
`
`directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’538 patent . . . by importing
`
`into the United States, and/or using, and/or selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States,
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, emphasis within this Brief has been added.
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 9 of 14
`
`without authority or license, the ’691 Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).”
`
`(Dkt. 1 at ¶ 199.)
`
`5.
`
`The Method of the ‘305 and 248 Patents Is Used Directly in the
`Manufacture of a Physical Product
`
`WDT’s argument that the ‘305 and ‘248 patents produce “at best ‘information’” (Dkt. 20
`
`at 6) ignores Ocean’s entire Opposition (see Dkt. 19 at 11-13) and is a flat mischaracterization of
`
`the method actually claimed by the patents. Without a means of scheduling, it would be
`
`impossible to coordinate the complex operational steps and multiple tools used in a
`
`manufacturing facility. The ’305 and ’248 patents both describe ways “for efficiently scheduling
`
`and controlling the lots [] of wafers [] through the fabrication process.” (Dkt. 1-2 at 6:45-48;
`
`Dkt. 1-4 at 6:47-50.) The scheduling methods dictate not only when a manufacturing action
`
`occurs but also how that action should be taken, all during the process of manufacturing physical
`
`products.
`
`Further, WDT’s contention that “[n]owhere [in its Opposition] does Ocean assert that the
`
`accused product is actually made by the alleged patented process” (Dkt. 20 at 6) is demonstrably
`
`wrong. Ocean’s Opposition explicitly states that “the ‘scheduling’ method described in both
`
`patents governs not only when to take certain manufacturing actions but also what
`
`manufacturing actions to take in making the physical products.” (Dkt. 19 at 13.) This
`
`description is also included in the Complaint (Dkt. 1 at 117, 137), and is more than sufficient to
`
`mandate rejection of WDT’s arguments.
`
`6.
`
`The Method of the ‘330 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of
`a Physical Product
`
`Ocean provided ample support in its Opposition that the claims of the ‘330 patent
`
`properly support a claim of infringement under § 271(g). WDT cannot legitimately dispute this
`
`and, instead, attempts to distract the Court with a purported instruction as to what the “relevant
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 10 of 14
`
`inquiry is.” (Dkt. 20 at 7.) WDT’s framing of the issue, however, is self-servingly narrow, and
`
`unsurprisingly supported by zero cited legal authority. The weakness of WDT’s position is
`
`confirmed by the fact that none of the other four defendants in parallel actions who filed motions
`
`to dismiss moved to dismiss the § 271(g) cause of action as to the ‘330 patent.
`
`Moreover, WDT’s continued assertion that Ocean does not “allege that any change to the
`
`accused product occurs as a result of the patented process in asserted claim 19” ignores the plain
`
`language of the patent. One need look no farther than the claim language to realize that such
`
`changes to the wafer occur: “adjust one or more fabrication components or one or more
`
`operating parameters associated with the fabrication components” as recited in claim 19, and
`
`“forming one or more underlying [and overlying] gratings within an underlying layer of at least a
`
`portion of the wafer” as recited in claim 21.
`
`As with each of the other patents at issue, the methods of the ‘330 patent fall within the
`
`scope of coverage encompassed by § 271(g).
`
`7.
`
`The Method of the ‘651 Patent Is Used Directly in the Manufacture of
`a Physical Product
`
`WDT first asserts that “it is of no moment what a hypothetical ‘process operation’ may
`
`be” immediately before making the argument that a process operation amounts to “i.e., scanning
`
`or imaging.” (Dkt. 20 at 7.) WDT relies entirely on this definition of “process operation” while
`
`wholly ignoring multiple points and citations to the ‘651 Patent’s disclosure made by Ocean in
`
`its Opposition (see Dkt. 19 at 14-15). That Opposition discussion fully rebuts WDT’s attempt to
`
`limit the claims to simply “scanning or imaging.”
`
`Notably, once again, none of the other four defendants in parallel actions who filed
`
`motions to dismiss moved to dismiss the § 271(g) cause of action as to the ‘651 patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 11 of 14
`
`B.
`
`Ocean Asserts Knowledge and Specific Intent in the Complaint by Showing
`WDC’s Contacts with WDT and that WDT Contracts with Third-Party
`Importers to Infringe the Asserted Patents
`
`WDT’s Reply arguments regarding inducement (Dkt. 20 at 8-9) are misguided and do
`
`nothing to overcome Ocean’s appropriate Complaint allegations supporting its inducement
`
`causes of action.
`
`First, as discussed above, Ocean plausibly asserts direct infringement in the Complaint.
`
`Second, Ocean’s Opposition does not make new allegations. It cannot be disputed that
`
`Ocean asserted in the Complaint that WDT had actual notice of the Asserted Patents (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶
`
`73, 94, 114, 134, 155, 176, 196), which is all that is required at the pleadings stage. Parity
`
`Networks, LLC v. Cisco Sys., C.A. No. 19-00207-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144094, at *6-7
`
`(W.D. Tex. July 26, 2019) (finding that the receipt of two letters identifying the patents is
`
`sufficient to plead notice). Indeed, to rebut WDT’s Motion assertion that it did not have notice
`
`of the patents at issue because the letters were delivered to WDC, Ocean cited to WDT’s own
`
`corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 13) and the Complaint (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 8).
`
`Thus, at a minimum, Ocean provided factual allegations—allegations that the Court must
`
`take as true—that would allow an inference that WDT had pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted
`
`Patents through its contacts with WDC. See RK Sols., LLC v. Vitajoy USA Inc., No. 18-06608-
`
`CAS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200681, *8-9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2018) (imputing knowledge of
`
`patents to a subsidiary for indirect infringement claims based on a notice letter to the parent
`
`because “at this [motion to dismiss] juncture the Court must accept plaintiffs’ allegations as
`
`true. . . .”.3
`
`
`3 In a footnote, WDT attempts to distinguish RK Sols. by pointing out that the parent corporation
`was a defendant in the action (Dkt. 20 at n.11) but fails to explain the relevance of that fact.
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 12 of 14
`
`Further, WDT’s Reply is wrong in asserting that “Ocean has not alleged ‘culpable
`
`conduct, directed to encouraging another’s infringement.’” (Dkt. 20 at 9.) As discussed in
`
`Ocean’s Opposition, “the Complaint alleges that WDT is liable for induced infringement by
`
`third-party importers because WDT encouraged them to infringe the Asserted Patents via
`
`importation under § 271(g) . . . .” (Dkt. 19 at 17, citing Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 87, 107, 127, 148, 169, 189,
`
`209.) This same allegation, which includes an inferable intent to induce third-party
`
`manufactured and importers to infringe at WDT’s direction, directly counter’s WDT’s assertion
`
`that “Ocean has not “alleged an “‘affirmative intent’ to induce others to infringe.” (Dkt. 20 at 9.)
`
`Finally, WDT fails to rebut, and thus concedes, that Ocean has identified specific classes
`
`of information relevant to induced infringement, and that “[b]y identifying specific classes of
`
`information, [Ocean] makes a plausible showing that discovery will reveal evidence—
`
`specifically, those three classes of evidence—in support of [Ocean’s] inducement claims.” See
`
`Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corp., 408 F. Supp. 3d 819, 831 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (citing James v.
`
`J2 Cloud Servs., LLC, 887 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`
`C. WDT’s Use of Case Law From the JMOL Stage Cannot Heighten the
`Pleading Standard for Willful infringement
`
`Contrary to WDT’s assertion (Dkt. 20 at 9), and as discussed above as to inducement and
`
`in its Opposition, Ocean substantively disputed that WDT was not on notice of the asserted
`
`patents as least as of the date the notice letters were issued to WDC.
`
`Moreover, WDT’s attempt to distinguish the Parity decision (Dkt. 20 at 9-10) misses the
`
`mark as the relevant holdings in that case were that “this case is not at the proof stage,” and that
`
`“the Complaint adequately alleges that Defendant had knowledge of infringement prior to the
`
`filing of the complaint, at least as early as the receipt of these letters.” Parity Networks, LLC v.
`
`Cisco Sys., C.A. No. 19-00207-ADA, 6-7 (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2019). Such is the situation here.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 13 of 14
`
`While WDT tries to recast this Court’s decision in Frac Shack, it cannot legitimately be
`
`disputed that the defendant there sought to have a willfulness pleading dismissed for failure to
`
`plead facts establishing “egregiousness,” and this Court nevertheless found that the pleading was
`
`sufficient to avoid a motion to dismiss. Ignoring that holding, WDT inappropriately seeks to
`
`raise the initial pleading standard for willful infringement to include egregiousness by citing to a
`
`Federal Circuit case addressing level of proof at the JMOL stage. Bayer Healthcare LLC v.
`
`Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The standard at and after a trial is, of course,
`
`very different than at the initial pleading stage. WDT fails to cite any case supporting the notion
`
`that egregiousness must be plead in the Complaint.
`
`D. WDT Concedes that, in All Events, Fact Issues Preclude Dismissal and that,
`at Worst, Leave to Amend Should Be Granted Rather Than Dismissal
`
`WDT entirely fails to address the final two sections of Ocean’s Opposition (see Dkt. 19 at
`
`20). As such, WDT concedes that fact issues would preclude dismissal and that, at worst, the
`
`Court should grant leave to amend the Complaint rather than dismissing the Complaint outright.
`
`Of course, given the numerous other flaws in WDT’s motion, it should be denied in its entirety.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the reasons stated above and in Ocean’s Opposition, WDT’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`should be denied.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 21-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 14 of 14
`
`Dated: April 9, 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 April 9, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`