throbber
Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`RFCyber CORP.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VISA U.S.A. Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.: 6:22-cv-00697
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT VISA U.S.A. INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS RFCYBER CORP.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
`
`Visa U.S.A. Inc. (“Visa”), respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff RFCyber’s
`
`(“Plaintiff”) Complaint for Patent Infringement (the “Complaint”) against Visa because it was
`
`not timely served within 90 days of when the Complaint was filed.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Visa on June 28, 2022, alleging Visa manufactured,
`
`used, marketed, distributed, sold, offered for sale, and exported from and imported into the United
`
`States devices and software that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,118,218, 8,448,855, 9,189,787,
`
`9,240,009 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Compl. ¶ 1, 12. The Patents-in-Suit allegedly
`
`cover apparatus and methods for provisioning a card and/or enabling secure contactless payment
`
`with a portable device. Compl. ¶ 11.
`
`On October 27, 2022, after 121 days had passed since Plaintiff filed the Complaint, Visa
`
`was served.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`a.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 4(m) Requires Dismissal of the
`Complaint against Defendant Visa
`
`Rule 12(b)(5) allows a party to file a motion to dismiss for “insufficient service of process.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). For service to be effective, a plaintiff must comply with Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
`
`Rule 4(m) gives a plaintiff 90 days after filing the complaint to make service. Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 4(m). If service is not made within this timeframe, the court must dismiss the action without
`
`prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. Id.
`
`However, if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
`
`service for an appropriate period. Id. If good cause does not exist, the court may, in its discretion,
`
`decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time. Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d
`
`20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original).
`
`The Complaint was filed on June 28, 2022. Ninety (90) days after Plaintiff filed the
`
`Complaint was September 26, 2022. Plaintiff waited until October 27, 2022, 121 days after filing
`
`the Complaint, before serving Visa. Visa should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s untimely
`
`service.
`
`b.
`
`Good Cause Does Not Exist to Extend the Time for Service
`
`The “good cause” under Rule 4(m) requires “‘at least as much as would be required to
`
`show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the
`
`rules usually does not suffice.’” Gartin v. Par Pharm. Cos., Inc., 289 F. App’x 688, 692 (5th Cir.
`
`2008) (quoting Lambert v. United States, 44 F.3d 296, 299 (5th Cir. 1995)). In addition, courts
`
`normally require “some showing of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and
`
`some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified …” Id.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`Here, there is no good cause for Plaintiff’s failure. Plaintiff has not offered any reason for
`
`failing to serve Visa within the required timeframe.
`
`c. This Court Should Not Exercise its Discretion to Extend the Time for Service
`
`When a plaintiff does not show good cause, a court nevertheless “has discretionary power
`
`to extend the time for service.” Millan v. USAA GIC, 546 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir. 2008). A
`
`discretionary extension may be warranted, “‘for example, if the applicable statute of limitations
`
`would bar the refiled action, or if the defendant is evading service or conceals a defect in
`
`attempted service.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) advisory committee’s note (1993)).
`
`Here, none of the common grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion exists. Pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. §286, the statute of limitations for patent infringement is six years. 35 U.S.C. §286.
`
`Plaintiff does not claim that Visa began infringing on the Patents-in-suit more than six years ago.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff does not claim that Visa has contributed to the insufficiency of service.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, Visa respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`Dated: November 17, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ James C. Yoon
`James C. Yoon (CA Bar No. 177155)
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Fax: (650) 493-6811
`Jamie Y. Otto (CA Bar No. 229323) (pro hac vice
`pending)
`jotto@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Fax: (866) 974-7329
`Attorneys for Defendant VISA U.S.A. Inc.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`document has been served on all counsel of record via electronic mail on November 17, 2022.
`
`By: /s/ James C. Yoon
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket