throbber
Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 412
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-01331 (MSN-IDD)
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT
`TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 22 PageID# 413
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`Geoscope Fails to State a Plausible Claim for Willful Infringement .......................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Geoscope’s Opposition Does Not Identify Factual Allegations to
`Support an Inference of Knowledge Required for Willfulness ...................3
`
`Geoscope’s Opposition Does Not Identify Factual Allegations to
`Plausibly Infer “Deliberate or Intentional Infringement” Required
`for Willfulness .............................................................................................7
`
`B.
`
`Geoscope Fails to State a Claim for Indirect Infringement .....................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Geoscope Does Not Plead Facts to Support a Reasonable Inference
`of Specific Intent Required for Induced Infringement ...............................10
`
`Geoscope Does Not Plausibly Allege That the Accused
`Instrumentality Lacks Substantial Non-Infringing Uses ............................12
`
`C.
`
`Geoscope’s Allegations of Post-Complaint Willfulness and Indirect
`Infringement Should be Dismissed ........................................................................14
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 22 PageID# 414
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`CASES
`
`Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter
`620 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.
`No. 3:16-cv-1400-SI, 2017 WL 2543811 (D. Or. June 12, 2017) ...............................1, 3, 5, 15
`
`Artrip v. Ball Corp.
`735 F. App’x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................12, 13
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................................2, 12, 13
`
`Audio MPEG, Inc. v. Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dell’ Elettronica Spa
`No. 2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK, 2016 WL 7010947 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2016) ..........................11
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)....................................................................................................9
`
`Biedermann Techs. GmbH & Co. KG v. K2M, Inc.
`528 F. Supp. 3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2021) ..................................................................................7, 15
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.
`583 F. Supp. 3d 769 (W.D. Tex. 2022)..................................................................................6, 9
`
`Cellcontrol, Inc. v. Mill Mountain Cap., LLC
`No. 7:21-cv-246, 2022 WL 598752 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2022) .....................................8, 10, 11
`
`Dali Wireless, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns LLC
`No. 20-cv-06469-EMC, 2022 WL 16701926 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2022) ...................................9
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc.
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
`No. 14-1430-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 5725768 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2015) ...................................6, 7
`
`Flypsi, Inc. v. Google LLC
`No. 6:22-cv-0031-ADA, 2022 WL 3593053 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) ............................3, 4
`
`Fortinet, Inc. v. Forescout Techs., Inc.
`543 F. Supp. 3d 814 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .......................................................................................8
`
`Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .....................................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 22 PageID# 415
`
`
`
`In re Heck
`699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983)..................................................................................................4
`
`Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp.
`No. 16 CIV. 2880 (AKH), 2020 WL 364136 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2020) ...............................3, 4
`
`Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.
`558 F. Supp. 3d 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)......................................................................................6, 7
`
`Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC v. Spectrum Sols. LLC
`564 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (D. Utah 2021) ........................................................................................9
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc.
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ..........................................................................................12
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Mediatek, Inc. v. NXP Semiconductors N.V.
`No. CV 21-4969-GW-AFMX, 2021 WL 8875772 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021) .........................8
`
`Mod. Font Applications LLC v. Peak Rest. Partners, LLC
`No. 2:19-cv-221 TS, 2020 WL 5370948 (D. Utah Sept. 8, 2020) .....................................10, 11
`
`NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.
`No. 5:18-cv-02352-EJD, 2018 WL 4510737 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018)..............................3, 4
`
`Nielsen Co. v. Comscore, Inc.
`819 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2011) ......................................................................................12
`
`Ravgen, Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.
`Ca. No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS, 2022 WL 2047613 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2022) ..................14
`
`Rembrandt Soc. Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.
`950 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Va. 2013) ......................................................................................14
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.
`No. 1:10-cv-115, 2019 WL 1233882 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2019)..............................................15
`
`Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd.
`No. 14-CV-5403 (KBF), 2016 WL 7177844 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2016) .....................................7
`
`Via Vadis, LLC v. Skype, Inc.
`No. 11-cv-507, 2012 WL 261367 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2012) ......................................................12
`
`Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
`983 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Va. 2013) .............................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 22 PageID# 416
`
`
`
`WCM Indus., Inc. v. IPS Corp.
`721 F. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................4
`
`Wrinkl, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
`No. 20-cv-1345-RGA, 2021 WL 4477022 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2021) .......................................14
`
`Xiamen Baby Pretty Prod. Co. v. Talbot’s Pharms. Fam. Prod., LLC
`No. 3:21-cv-00409, 2022 WL 509336 (W.D. La. Feb. 18, 2022) ...........................................15
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.
`528 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Del. 2021) .........................................................................................14
`
`STATUTE
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ..............................................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 22 PageID# 417
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Geoscope ’s Opposition does not identify any factual allegations in its Complaint that can
`
`support—under well-established law—a plausible inference that Google committed willful or
`
`indirect infringement. Instead, Geoscope relies on a set of unsupported inferences that have been
`
`repeatedly rejected by courts in similar cases. Dismissing these claims now would narrow the
`
`issues in this case and reduce the potential for burdensome and unnecessary discovery.
`
`Despite acknowledging that it must plead facts that plausibly support an inference that
`
`Google had actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents, Geoscope tries to evade this requirement by
`
`leaning on Google’s citations to patent applications that, with one exception, did not even issue as
`
`the Asserted Patents. As discussed below, numerous courts, including in this District, have
`
`expressly rejected this tactic—particularly where the patent applications were cited only in the
`
`defendant’s unrelated prosecution activities.
`
`Geoscope argues that the timing of the Asserted Patents’ issuance somehow supports an
`
`inference of knowledge. But there is no allegation that Google knew when (or whether) the patents
`
`issued, or had any reason to monitor the cited patent applications. Courts have rejected the
`
`inference that defendants monitor the status of patent applications cited during prosecution, absent
`
`some specific reason for doing so. See Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 983
`
`F. Supp. 2d 700, 710 (E.D. Va. 2013); Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1400-
`
`SI, 2017 WL 2543811, at *4 (D. Or. June 12, 2017) (dismissing willful infringement claim where
`
`patentee did not allege that “Defendant actively monitored the progress of Plaintiffs’ patent
`
`applications”). Geoscope’s complaint fails to plead knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and its
`
`allegations of willfulness and indirect infringement should be dismissed on this basis. And even
`
`if Geoscope had sufficiently alleged knowledge, the Court should still deny Geoscope’s allegation
`
`of willfulness because Geoscope fails to plead “deliberate or intentional infringement,” which
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 22 PageID# 418
`
`
`
`requires, at a minimum, that Geoscope plead factual allegations supporting a plausible inference
`
`that Google knew or should have known that it was infringing the Asserted Patents.
`
`Geoscope’s Opposition also fails to identify factual allegations to support its claims of
`
`indirect infringement. For induced infringement, Geoscope broadly asserts that Google markets
`
`its Location Services to users, but this says nothing about whether or how Google induces users to
`
`practice the specific claimed methods. And with respect to contributory infringement, Geoscope’s
`
`Opposition does not identify a single factual allegation to support its allegation that Google
`
`Location Services lacks non-infringing uses. Instead, Geoscope insists that pleading only the legal
`
`elements of contributory infringement is sufficient. This position directly contradicts Twombly
`
`and Iqbal, as well as the courts applying those decisions to indirect infringement allegations.
`
`As a fallback position, Geoscope asks this Court to allow its allegations of post-complaint
`
`willfulness and indirect infringement. The Court should reject this argument as well. Even if the
`
`complaint itself could satisfy the knowledge requirement, a point on which courts are split,
`
`Geoscope has still failed to plead the remaining elements of post-complaint willful and indirect
`
`infringement. Consequentially, those claims should be dismissed in their entirety.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Geoscope Fails to State a Plausible Claim for Willful Infringement
`
`Geoscope’s claim of willful infringement should be dismissed. Geoscope’s Opposition
`
`does not identify factual allegations to support an inference that Google had actual knowledge of
`
`the Asserted Patents. But even if Geoscope pled knowledge, its Opposition fails to identify any
`
`factual allegations directed to “deliberate or intentional infringement,” as there is nothing to
`
`support an inference that Google knew it was infringing the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 8 of 22 PageID# 419
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Geoscope’s Opposition Does Not Identify Factual Allegations to
`Support an Inference of Knowledge Required for Willfulness
`
`Geoscope’s Opposition does not identify any factual allegation that Google had knowledge
`
`of the Asserted Patents. Instead, Geoscope’s Opposition argues the Court can infer knowledge
`
`from (1) Google’s purported discussions of the ’237 application (which issued as the ’753 patent)
`
`coupled with the timing of when the ’753 patent issued, (2) Google’s purported citations to related
`
`patent applications, and (3) considering the cited patent applications “in combination” with generic
`
`allegations about Google’s research and development in the geolocation field. None of these
`
`allegations, viewed alone or in combination, can plausibly support an inference of knowledge.
`
`First, with respect to the ’753 patent, Geoscope’s Opposition continues to focus on
`
`Google’s purported knowledge of the patent application that issued as the ’753 patent. Dkt. No.
`
`31 at 5-8 (“Opp.”). But courts have repeatedly held that it is “insufficient to allege knowledge of
`
`a patent application without further alleging knowledge of the patent.” Virginia Innovation, 983
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 709; Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., No. 16 CIV. 2880 (AKH), 2020 WL 364136, at
`
`*4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2020) (“Knowledge of patent applications, even applications for the patent
`
`at issue, do not establish knowledge of the patent.”); NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., No. 5:18-cv-
`
`02352-EJD, 2018 WL 4510737, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) (“The general rule in this district
`
`is that knowledge of a patent application alone is insufficient to meet the knowledge requirement
`
`for either a willful or induced infringement claim.”); Flypsi, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:22-cv-
`
`0031-ADA, 2022 WL 3593053, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) (“[K]nowledge of patent
`
`applications generally without more is insufficient to satisfy the knowledge requirement.”); Adidas
`
`2017 WL 2543811, at *3 (“[I]nfringer's knowledge of the patent application cannot, standing
`
`alone, constitute knowledge of the resulting, or issued, patent-in-suit.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 9 of 22 PageID# 420
`
`
`
`Geoscope’s reliance on WCM Indus., Inc. v. IPS Corp., 721 F. App’x 959, 970 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018), is misplaced. Opp. at 6. There, the patentee provided evidence at trial “that [the defendant]
`
`did know of [the patentee’s] patents as they issued, if not earlier.” 721 F. App’x 959, 970 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). Given that record, the Federal Circuit rejected a per se rule that “a
`
`pending patent application cannot support a finding of willfulness.” Id. at 970 n.4 (emphasis
`
`added). WCM, however, does not alter the general rule that knowledge of a patent application,
`
`without more, is insufficient to allege knowledge at the pleading stage.
`
`This widely recognized prohibition against equating knowledge of a patent application with
`
`knowledge of the subsequent issued patent makes sense, particularly in the context of patent
`
`prosecution. Published patent applications ordinarily are cited during prosecution for their general
`
`disclosure, not for any issued claim—indeed, a patent application has no issued claims at the time
`
`of its publication. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (prior art patent
`
`references are “relevant for all they contain,” not only for the claims). Hence, a patent applicant
`
`ordinarily has no reason to monitor or investigate whether any given patent application cited as
`
`prior art during prosecution ultimately issues as a patent. Moreover, as the Court in Virginia
`
`Innovations emphasized, “[f]iling an application is no guarantee any patent will issue and a very
`
`substantial percentage of applications never result in patents.” Virginia Innovation, 983 F. Supp.
`
`2d at 709.
`
`Because Geoscope only pleads factual allegations directed to Google’s knowledge of the
`
`’237 application, its allegations fail as a matter of law. Virginia, 983 F. Supp. 2d at 709; Kaufman,
`
`2020 WL 364136, at *4; NetFuel, 2018 WL 4510737, at *2; Flypsi, 2022 WL 3593053, at *5.
`
`Geoscope tries to overcome this deficiency by asserting that Google repeatedly cited the ’237
`
`application after it already issued as the ’753 patent. Opp. at 6-7 (alleging pre-suit knowledge
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 10 of 22 PageID# 421
`
`
`
`based on “the timing” of Google’s knowledge of the patent applications). But this allegation, if
`
`taken as true, does not support the inference that Google knew about the ’753 patent. If anything,
`
`the allegation that Google continued to cite the published ’237 application after it issued as the
`
`’753 patent supports the inference that Google did not know the patent issued. Had Google known
`
`the ’753 patent issued, it could have cited the issued patent in lieu of the published application.
`
`Regardless, Geoscope makes no factual allegations to suggest that Google would have looked for
`
`the ’753 patent or knew when it issued. Adidas, 2017 WL 2543811, at *4) (dismissing willful
`
`infringement claim where patentee did not allege that “Defendant actively monitored the progress
`
`of Plaintiffs’ patent applications, so that Defendant would have learned of their issuance when they
`
`issued”).
`
`Geoscope contends that Virginia Innovation “undermines Google’s argument” because the
`
`“allegations of the defendant’s knowledge of a patent application (“Wang”) sufficed to create a
`
`plausible inference that the defendant knew of the patent issuing.” Opp. at 7. But the facts in
`
`Virginia Innovation only highlight why Geoscope’s complaint is deficient. In Virginia Innovation,
`
`the defendant purportedly spent nearly five years trying to overcome multiple rejections based on
`
`the Wang application, only to abruptly abandon their application shortly after Wang issued as the
`
`asserted patent. 983 F. Supp. 2d at 709. The Court found this evidence of a sudden shift in the
`
`defendant’s patent strategy created a plausible inference that the defendant discovered that
`
`plaintiff’s patent issued. Id. That is a far cry from the allegations in Geoscope’s complaint, in
`
`which Geoscope alleges only that the ’753 patent issued during prosecution of Google’s unrelated
`
`patent applications, but pleads no factual allegations to support the inference that Google would
`
`have known about the issuance of the ’753 patent. See Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 88-89.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 11 of 22 PageID# 422
`
`
`
`Second, with respect to the other five Asserted Patents, Geoscope’s allegations are even
`
`more plainly inadequate. Geoscope’s Opposition concedes that its Complaint alleges that Google
`
`referenced “patent applications in the same family as the Asserted Patents,” but not the Asserted
`
`Patents themselves. Opp. at 8 (emphasis added).1 Nevertheless, Geoscope insists that “[c]ourts
`
`have recognized that knowledge of related patents and applications can support an inference that
`
`a defendant knew of an asserted patent under certain circumstances.” Id. at 8-9. Geoscope’s
`
`argument disregards Virginia Innovation, in which the court addressed this precise issue and
`
`dismissed willfulness claims because knowledge of the asserted patent cannot be based solely on
`
`the “relationship between the [cited] patent and the [asserted] patents.” 983 F. Supp. 2d at 709-
`
`710; see also BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 769, 776 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (refusing to
`
`find that “notice of one patent in a portfolio or large family constitutes constructive notice of every
`
`patent in that portfolio or family”).
`
`Unable to identify any authority from this District to support its proposition that knowledge
`
`of a patent (or, in this case, application) also constitutes knowledge of related patents, Geoscope
`
`relies on two cases from other jurisdictions that included specific allegations suggesting
`
`knowledge that are not present here: Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 14-
`
`1430-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 5725768 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2015), and Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`558 F. Supp. 3d 90, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). But those decisions only underscore the deficiency of
`
`Geoscope’s allegations. In Elm 3DS Innovations, the complaint alleged the inventor presented his
`
`patented technology to the defendant and subsequently sent a copy of a related patent. 2015 WL
`
`
`1 For example, Geoscope contends that Google cited patent applications that claimed priority to
`provisional application no. 60/899,379. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 90-92. For context, there are at least 20
`patent applications that claim priority to this same provisional application, not all of which
`issued as patents. Continuity Data for App. No. 60/899,379, USPTO,
`https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/60899379/continuity (last accessed Jan. 21, 2023).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 12 of 22 PageID# 423
`
`
`
`5725768, at *2-*3. And in Kewazinga, the patentee allegedly met with the defendant to discuss
`
`his infringement allegations prior to filing suit. Kewazinga, 558 F. Supp. 3d at 119. The courts in
`
`both cases found that such circumstances made it at least plausible for the defendant to have
`
`investigated related patents. Elm 3DS, 2015 WL 5725768, at *3; Kewazinga, 558 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`119. Neither case is analogous here, as Geoscope’s complaint does not allege any facts to suggest
`
`that Google should have investigated the patent families of the patent applications cited during
`
`prosecution. Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., No. 14-CV-5403 (KBF), 2016 WL
`
`7177844, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2016) (“The law does not require an investigation; the law
`
`requires actual knowledge or its equivalent.”).
`
`Third, Geoscope argues that its reliance on the cited patent applications must be
`
`“considered in combination” with its allegation that “Google was developing technology and filing
`
`for patents in the same fields as the Asserted Patents.” Opp. at 8. But the allegation that Google
`
`was “developing technology and filing for patents in the same fields” is simply another way of
`
`saying that Google was a “competitor in the field,” which Geoscope concedes is insufficient. Opp.
`
`at 10; Biedermann Techs. GmbH & Co. KG v. K2M, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 3d 407, 427 (E.D. Va.
`
`2021). Geoscope’s complaint cannot pass the plausibility threshold simply because it tacks on
`
`generic allegations that Google is a large company that conducts geolocation research. Regardless
`
`of whether Geoscope’s factual allegations are viewed individually or in combination, they fail to
`
`support a reasonable inference of knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`Geoscope’s Opposition Does Not Identify Factual Allegations to
`Plausibly Infer “Deliberate or Intentional Infringement” Required for
`Willfulness
`
`Even if Geoscope’s allegations could support an inference of knowledge, Geoscope still
`
`fails to plead “deliberate or intentional infringement,” as required for willfulness. With respect to
`
`this second prong, Geoscope’s Opposition does not identify any factual allegations to support an
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 13 of 22 PageID# 424
`
`
`
`inference that Google’s purported infringement was deliberate or intentional, or that Google knew
`
`of the alleged infringement. Opp. at 11. Instead, Geoscope argues that knowledge of the Asserted
`
`Patents is sufficient at the pleadings stage. Id. Geoscope’s attempt to conflate the knowledge
`
`requirement with “deliberate or intentional” conduct contravenes Federal Circuit guidance and the
`
`weight of district courts’ decisions.
`
`As a preliminary matter, Geoscope urges this Court to disregard Bushnell because it
`
`required patentees to plead “egregious misconduct” and was decided before Eko Brands, LLC v.
`
`Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Opp. at 11-12. To be
`
`clear, Eko did not eliminate the requirement of proving “egregious conduct” for enhanced damages
`
`based on willful infringement, but held only that the court, rather than the jury, decides whether
`
`the infringing activity constitutes “egregious behavior.” Eko, 946 F.3d at 1378. While this District
`
`has yet to determine whether the patentee is still required to plead “egregious conduct” (as opposed
`
`to “deliberate or intentional infringement”) after Eko, the Western District of Virginia continues
`
`to dismiss allegations of willful infringement that fail to plead egregious conduct. See Cellcontrol,
`
`Inc. v. Mill Mountain Cap., LLC, No. 7:21-cv-246, 2022 WL 598752, at *5 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28,
`
`2022) (citing Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 103 (2016). Other
`
`courts follow this approach as well. See, e.g., Mediatek, Inc. v. NXP Semiconductors N.V., No.
`
`CV 21-4969-GW-AFMX, 2021 WL 8875772, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021); Fortinet, Inc. v.
`
`Forescout Techs., Inc., 543 F. Supp. 3d 814, 840 (N.D. Cal. 2021).
`
`Regardless, although the requirement of alleging egregious conduct to state a claim for
`
`willful infringement is well supported, see Cellcontrol, 2022 WL 598752, at *5; see also Halo,
`
`579 U.S. at 103; this Court need not reach this legal question here: Geoscope’s complaint pleads
`
`neither “egregious conduct” nor “deliberate or intentional infringement.” Simply relying on its
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 14 of 22 PageID# 425
`
`
`
`unsupported assertion that Google had knowledge of the Asserted Patents, as Geoscope does here,
`
`is insufficient under either standard. Even after Eko, the Federal Circuit maintains that
`
`“[k]nowledge of the asserted patent and evidence of infringement is necessary, but not sufficient,
`
`for a finding of willfulness.” Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 988 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2021). Thus, at the pleading stage, there must be factual allegations to show, at a minimum, both
`
`the “accused infringer’s knowledge of the patents and knowledge of infringement.” Dali Wireless,
`
`Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns LLC, No. 20-cv-06469-EMC, 2022 WL 16701926, at *3 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Nov. 3, 2022) (emphasis added); see also BillJCo, 583 F. Supp. 3d at 774 (“[P]laintiff must
`
`allege facts plausibly showing that accused infringer: (1) ‘knew of the patent-in-suit; (2) after
`
`acquiring that knowledge, it infringed the patent; and (3) in doing so, it knew, or should have
`
`known, that its conduct amounted to infringement of the patent.’”); Longhorn Vaccines &
`
`Diagnostics, LLC v. Spectrum Sols. LLC, 564 F. Supp. 3d 1126, 1147-48 (D. Utah 2021) (rejecting
`
`argument that “allegations of knowledge and infringement are sufficient at the pleadings stage to
`
`support an inference of willfulness” after Eko).
`
`Here, there is no dispute that Geoscope does not plead factual allegations to support a
`
`plausible inference that Google “knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted to
`
`infringement of the patent.” In the absence of such factual allegations, pleading mere knowledge
`
`of the Asserted Patents is insufficient, and Geoscope’s allegation of willful infringement should
`
`be dismissed on this independent basis.
`
`B.
`
`Geoscope Fails to State a Claim for Indirect Infringement
`
`Like willful infringement, indirect infringement also requires Geoscope to plead
`
`knowledge of the Asserted Patents, which Geoscope fails to do for the reasons discussed above.
`
`But even if Geoscope’s allegations are sufficient for knowledge, Geoscope’s Opposition still fails
`
`to identify sufficient factual allegations to support its claims of indirect infringement. Geoscope’s
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 15 of 22 PageID# 426
`
`
`
`generic allegation that Google markets its Location Services does not support a plausible inference
`
`that Google specifically intended to induce users to practice the particular methods claimed in the
`
`Asserted Patents. Likewise, Geoscope’s argument that pleading the bare elements of contributory
`
`infringement is sufficient contradicts the Federal Circuit’s guidance, and should be rejected.
`
`1.
`
`Geoscope Does Not Plead Facts to Support a Reasonable Inference of
`Specific Intent Required for Induced Infringement
`
`In its Opposition, Geoscope argues that it has met its obligation to plead specific intent by
`
`alleging that Google is engaged in “selling, marketing, advertising, promotion, support, and
`
`distribution of the Accused Instrumentality” and “tout[ing] the benefits of, and encourages the use
`
`of, the Accused Instrumentality by its customers and end-users.” Opp. at 10-12. This generic
`
`allegation, however, is wholly detached from any claims of the Asserted Patents and cannot
`
`support a plausible inference of specific intent to induce infringement.
`
`Courts have dismissed claims of induced infringement based on the defendant’s marketing
`
`material, where the marketing is not directed to the specifically asserted claims or methods.
`
`Cellcontrol, 2022 WL 598752, at *4 (dismissing allegation of induced infringement where the
`
`allegations of “specific intent to encourage direct infringement is based on generalized marketing
`
`statements on the [accused infringer’s] website bearing no apparent relation to the claims in the
`
`patents”); Mod. Font Applications LLC v. Peak Rest. Partners, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-221 TS, 2020
`
`WL 5370948, at *3 (D. Utah Sept. 8, 2020), aff’d, No. 2020-2278, 2022 WL 726972 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Mar. 10, 2022) (dismissing allegations of induced infringement based on the accused infringer’s
`
`website and application, where the patentee “offers nothing to suggest that Peak intended its
`
`customers to infringe; only that customers were encouraged to download the application”).
`
`Like the allegations in Cellcontrol and Modern Font, Geoscope’s allegation that Google
`
`promotes its Location Services generally says nothing about whether or how Google purportedly
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 37 Filed 01/23/23 Page 16 of 22 PageID# 427
`
`
`
`induces users to infringe the methods claimed in the Asserted Patents. For example, Geoscope’s
`
`Complaint alleges the inventions in the ’104, ’358 and ’494 patents recite a geolocation method
`
`that requires “modifying the observed data, including in specific manners, and the dependent
`
`claims of the patents cover further specific refinements to the claimed inventions, including
`
`additional limitations on how the calibration data is collected and how the observed data is
`
`modified.” Dkt. 1, ¶ 54. The complaint is entirely silent on how Google purportedly induce users
`
`to modify data “in specific manners” or make the “specific refinements” of the claim. At most,
`
`the complaint simply asserts that Google promoted its Google Location Services, which does not
`
`support a plausible inference that Google taught users to practice any claimed method.
`
`The court’s decision in Audio MPEG, Inc. v. Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dell’
`
`Elettronica Spa does not support Geoscope’s position. No. 2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK, 2016 WL
`
`7010947, at *9 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2016). Audio MPEG involved infringement allegations based on
`
`MP3 audio technology. Id. The patentee alleged that “products capable of decoding an audio
`
`signal that has been encoded in compliance with MPEG Standards (e.g., MP3 files) necessarily
`
`infringe the ’829 Patent.” Id. at *2 (emphasis added). The complaint further alleged that the
`
`defendant specifically promoted the infringing MP3 audio technology by touting the “MP3
`
`capabilities” of computers sold on their websites. Id. at *9. Unlike in Audio MPEG, Geoscope
`
`has not alleged that Google encouraged users to perform any specific functions that infringe the
`
`Asserted Claims. Instead, Geoscope simply alleges that Google promotes Location Ser

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