Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`AT SEATTLE
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`I
`
`.
`
`CASE NO. C17-0932JLR
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ORDER GRANTING
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, et a1.,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
`DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO
`AMEND
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Before the court is Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc’s
`
`(collectively, “HTC”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff CyWee Group Ltd’s (“CyWee”) claims
`
`for induced infringement. (MTD (Dkt. # 35).) The court has considered the motion, the
`
`parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to the motion to dismiss, the relevant
`
`portions of the record, and the applicable law. No party has requested oral argument.
`
`Being fully advised, the court GRANTS HTC’s motion to dismiss CyWee’s induced
`
`infringement claims with leave to amend.
`
`ORDER — 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 2 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 2 of 14
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This case concerns allegations of patent infringement. CyWee provides products
`
`and services in the areas of “motion processing, wireless high definition Video delivery,
`
`and facial tracking technology.” (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 20) 11 2.) CyWee owns two
`
`patents protecting its technology that detects, measures, and calculates the movements
`
`and rotations of machines: United States Patent No. 8,441,438 (“the ’438 Patent”) and
`
`United States Patent No. 8,552,978 (“the ’978 Patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-
`
`suit”).
`
`(Id. 1111 22, 120.)
`
`The Patents-in-suit “disclose devices and methods for tracking the motion of a
`
`device in 3D space and compensating for accumulated errors.” (Gans Decl. (Dkt. # 20-3)
`
`11 8.)1 In other words, the protected inventions “teach how to determine a device’s current
`
`orientation based on motion data detected by its motion sensors.” (Id) Specifically,
`
`CyWee protected its “sensor fusion technology,” which “incorporate[s] the data fiom
`
`multiple sensors and compensate[s] for [any] errors.” (Id. 11 10.) The ’438 Patent
`
`“discloses an enhanced sensor fusion technology and application for calculating
`
`orientation .
`
`.
`
`. by using measurements from both a 3-axis accelerometer and a 3-aXis
`
`gyroscope.” (Id) The ’978 Patent protectsa similar sensor fusion technology but uses a
`
`third sensor—a magnetometer—in addition to an accelerometer and a gyrosCope.
`
`(Id.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`//
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1 The declaration of Dr. Nicholas Gans was attached to CyWee’s amended complaint.
`(See generally Gans Decl.) The court may consider “documents attached to the complaint, [or]
`documents incorporated by reference in the complaint .
`.
`. without converting [a] motion [to
`dismiss] .
`.
`. into a motion for summary judgment.” See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903,
`908 (9th Cir. 2003).
`'
`
`ORDER - 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 3 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 3 of 14
`
`11 11.) This sensor fusion technology is useful for games that incorporate the motion of
`
`the device into play, augmented reality applications, and virtual reality applications. (See
`
`id. 111118,21—22.)
`
`CyWee initially sued HTC on June 16, 2017, and amended its complaint on July 6,
`
`2017, alleging direct infringement of the Patents—in—suit as well as indirect infringement
`
`through inducement. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 1); Am. Compl.) As relevant here,
`
`CyWee asserts that HTC indirectly infringes the Patents-in—suit by:
`
`
`
`[i]nducing others to infringe on one or more claims of the [Patents—in—suit]
`through sale and/or use of the [Patents—in—suit] Accused Products. On
`information and belief, at least as a result of the filing of this action, HTC is
`aware of the [Patents-in—suit];
`is aware that its actions with regards to
`distributors, resellers, and/or end users of the [Patents—in—suit] Accused
`Products would induce infringement; and despite such awareness will
`continue to take active steps—such as, creating and disseminating the
`[Patents-in—suit] Accused Products, and product manuals,
`instructions
`promotional and marketing materials, and/or
`technical materials
`to
`distributors, resellers, and end users—encouraging other’s infringement of
`the [Patents—in—suit] with the specific intent to induce such infringement.2
`
`,
`
`(Am. Compl. 11 28.) CyWee also attaches two claim charts to its amended complaint
`
`illustrating how the HTC products infringe upOn the Patents-in—suit. (See ’438 Claim
`
`Chart (Dkt. # 20-1); ’978 Claim Chart (Dkt. # 20-2).) Both claim charts include several
`screenshotswthe majority ofwhich do not derive from HTdeepicting the computing
`
`code‘that presumably is used by the accused products and how that code allows the
`
`accused products to perform the protected methods.
`
`(See, e.g.,’978 Claim Chart at 4-9.)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`//
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2 CyWee includes this identical allegation of induced infringement for both
`Patents-in-suit. (See Am. Compl. W 28, 126.)
`
`ORDER - 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 4 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 4 of 14
`
`HTC moves to dismiss only these induced infringement claims for failure to state a claim.
`
`(MTD at 1.)
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Dismissal for failure to state a claim “is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable
`
`legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”
`
`Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted). “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.”’
`
`10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`US. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
`
`content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
`
`for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the standard “asks for more than sheer
`
`possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” it is not “akin to a probability
`
`requirement.” Id. Thus, the plausibility requirement “simply calls for enough fact[s] to
`
`raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal” liability for the alleged
`
`misconduct. Twombly, 550 US. at 556.
`
`When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(b)(6), the court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
`
`party. Livia’ Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc, 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir.
`
`2005). The court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable
`
`inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P ’ship 12. Turner Broad. 5323., Inc, 135
`
`ORDER - 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 5 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 5 of 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). “Mere conclusory statements” or “formulaic recitation[s]
`
`of the elements of a cause of action,” however, “are not entitled to the presumption of
`
`truth.” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Twombly,
`
`550 US. at 555). On a motion to dismiss,the court may consider the pleadings,
`
`documents attached to the pleadings, documents incorporated therein, or matters of
`
`judicial notice. Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908 (citing Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc,
`
`284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002)).
`
`B.
`
`CyWee’sInduced Infringement Claims
`
`“Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an
`
`infiinger.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Induced infringement has three elements:
`
`(1) knowledge
`
`of the patent, (2) knowledge that the induced acts will infringe, and (3) intent to bring
`
`about the infringement. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc, --- U.S. ---, 135 S. Ct.
`
`1920, 1925, 1928 (2015); see also Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB SA, 563 US.
`754, 760 (2011) (‘i‘[I]nducement must involvethe taking of affirmative steps to bring
`
`about the desired result”). Thus, CyWee must plead facts “plausibly showing that [HTC]
`
`specifically intended [its] customers to infringe the [Patents-in—suit] and knew that the
`
`17
`
`customers” acts constituted infringement.” In re Bill ofLading Transmission &
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Processing Sys. Patent Litig, 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`HTC does not challenge the first element, knowledge of the patent. Instead, it
`
`focuses on the remaining two elements and argues that the induced infringement claims
`
`must be dismissed because CyWee fails to sufficiently allege (1) HTC’s knowledge that
`
`the induced acts will infringe, and (2) HTC’s specific intent to bring about the
`
`ORDER - 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 6 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 6 of 14
`
`infringement—specifically, any affirmative steps taken to cause others to infringe the
`
`Patents—in—suit. (See MTD at 1.) The court addresses each argument in turn.
`
`1. End User Infringement
`
`HTC argues that CyWee “alleges no facts showing how any third party’s ‘use’
`
`constitutes infringement of the Patents-in[s]uit” and thus fails to sufficiently plead HTC’s
`
`knowledge that their end users” actions constitute infringement. (MTD at 6.) The court
`
`disagrees. “A plaintiff may sufficiently plead the knowledge required for induced
`
`infringement by alleging that it .
`
`.
`
`. inform[ed] [the defendants] of the patent and that
`
`their customers are infringing the patent by using their products.” Intellicheck Mobilisa,
`
`Inc. v. Wizz Sys., LLC, No. C15—0366JLR, 2016WL 258524, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21,
`
`2016). The plaintiff need not allege that the defendant acknowledged infringement was
`
`occurring. Id. In Intellicheck Mobilisa, Inc. v. Wizz Systems, LLC, the plaintiffs
`
`allegations that it informed the defendant how the accused products infiinge on specific
`
`claims in the patents-in—suit by using a claim chart with examples of such infringement
`
`were sufficient at the pleading stage. Id. at *3.
`
`The same is true with CyWee’s pleadings. CyWee informed HTC, through its
`
`claim charts, how HTC products infringe on specific claims in the Patents—in—suit.
`
`(See .
`
`generally ’438 Claim Chart; ’978 Claim Chart.) These claim charts, along with the filing
`
`of the suit, inform HTC that several of its products utilize the methods protected by
`
`CyWee’s Patents-in—Suit and that use of the accused products by its customers infringe
`
`upon the Patents—in-Suit as well. See Intelliclzeck Mobilisa, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc,
`
`No. C16—0341JLR, 2017 WL 5634131, at *11 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2017) (allowing
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`ORDER ~ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 7 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 7 of 14
`
`post—suit knowledge to satisfy the knowledge element for indirect infringement). From
`
`these allegations, the court can draw the reasonable inference that HTC knew its
`
`customers, through the use of its accused products, were infringing upon the
`
`Patents—in—suit. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. At this stage, such a reasonable inference is
`
`sufficient. See Bill ofLading, 681 F.3d at 1341.
`
`2. Specific Intent and Affirmative St_eps by HTC
`
`Nonetheless, the court grants HTC’s motion to dismiss because CyWee has failed
`
`to sufficiently plead specific intent. A claim of indirect infringement “must contain facts
`
`plausibly showing that [the defendant] specifically intended their customers to infringe
`
`the [patents].” Bill ofLading, 681 F.3d at 1339. This scienter standard is demanding
`
`because the law is “reluctan[t] to find liability when a defendant merely sells a
`
`commercial product suitable for some lawful use.” DSUMed. Corp. v. JMS C0., 471
`
`F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc). Specific intent can be shown through
`
`circumstantial evidence, but “the mere knowledge of possible infringement will not
`
`suffice.” Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc, 581 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Evidence of “active steps .
`
`.
`
`. taken to encourage direct infringement, such as
`
`advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, ShOW an
`
`affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe.” Metro-Goldwn-Mayer Studios
`
`Inc, 545 U.S. at 936. In other words, “one who distributes a device with the object of
`
`promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative
`
`steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third
`
`parties.” Id. at 936-37. “Courts have found inducement allegations sufficient when, for
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`ORDER - 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 8 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 8 of 14
`
`example, the complaint contains ‘factual allegations setting forth the similarities between
`
`the patent claims and the advertised features of the [defendant’s] products.
`
`Bascom
`
`D”
`
`Research :LC v. Facebook, Inc, NOS. Cl2—6293 SI, C12-6294SI, C12-629SSI,
`
`C12—6296VSI, C12—6297SI, 2013 WL 968210, at *5 (ND. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013).
`
`HTC argues both that (1) CyWee “alleges no facts that plausibly show that HTC
`
`took ‘affirmative steps’ to cause its end users or customers to infringe the Patents-in-
`
`[s]uit” (MTD at 4—5), and (2) the pleadings contain no factual allegations supporting
`
`specific intent in general (id. at 5).3 CyWee, in response, points to its assertions that HTC
`
`continued to sell, promote, and disseminate product manuals and instructions to its
`
`distributors, resellers, and end users, even after learning of the alleged infringement.
`
`(Resp. at 5-8.) The court agrees with HTC that the pleadings as presented do not contain
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12.
`
`sufficient factual allegations for the court to reasonably infer specific intent.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`CyWee is correct that generally, when “a party, with knowledge of another party’s
`
`patent, advertises or promotes its product for use in an infringing manner, this is
`
`sufficient to support an inference that the promoting party intended to induce
`
`infringement.” CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc, No. 5:11-CV-06635-LHK, 2013 WL
`
`3958379, at *4 (ND. Cal. July 29, 2013) (citing Bill ofLading, 681 F.3d at 1341—42);
`
`(see Resp. at 5). But, as expressly noted in the CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclz‘fe Inc. quote, the '
`
`3 HTC incorrectly suggests that the taking of affirmative steps and specific intent are two
`separate elements of induced infringement.
`(See MTD at 4-5 (describing the two as the first and
`second elements of inducted infringement).) Instead, the two concepts are intertwined, as
`affirmative steps taken by the defendant may be used to establish its specific intent. See Metro—
`Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc, 545 US. at 936. Thus, the court considers HTC’S two arguments
`together.
`'
`
`ORDER — 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 9 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 9 of 14
`
`l
`
`advertisement or promotion must advocate for “use in an infringing manner” for the court
`
`to reasonably infer specific intent. See id. “Where defendants have not touted the
`
`benefits of the accused products in ways that track the asserted patents, courts generally
`
`do not infer specific intent.” Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1185,
`
`1195 (D. Or. 2015) (“Memory Integrity II”). This requirement, that the post-knowledge
`
`actions teach an infringing use, ensures that “ordinary acts incident to product
`
`distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, will not
`
`support inducement liability in themselves.” Id. at 1193.
`
`The cases that CyWee relies upon illustrate this distinction. In each of CyWee’s
`
`cited cases, the complaint survives the motion to dismiss because the pleadings include
`
`specific factual allegations on how the defendant’s actions were connected to infringing
`
`uses of the accused product. (See Resp. at 5-6, 8); Bill ofLading, 681 F.3d at 1341-43
`
`(denying motion to dismiss when the pleadings included advertisements that specifically
`
`touted the ability of the accused products to perform the same functions as disclosed in
`
`the patent). For instance, in CreAgri, the plaintiff explicitly identified the defendant’s
`
`website statements, YouTube videos, and a study conducted by the defendant which
`
`“promote[d] and encourage[d] [the defendant’s] customers and study participants to use
`
`[the accused product] in a manner that allegedly infringes the [patent-in—suit].” 2013 WL
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18'
`
`19
`
`3958379, at *3. In Intellicheck Mobilisa., the complaint identified the specific website
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`where continued sales were being made and asserted that the manuals “instruct[ed]
`
`customers to operate those products to practice the claimed invention.” 2016 WL
`
`258524, at *1. In Tranxiz‘ion, Inc. v. Novell, Inc, the pleadings referenced a webpage as
`
`ORDER — 9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 10 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 10 of 14
`
`evidence that the defendant continued to encourage use of its infringing software. No.
`
`031:12-cv-01404—HZ, 2013 WL 2318846, at *5 (D. Or. May 27,2013).
`
`When, on the other hand, the defendant’s actions do not recommend an infringing
`
`use, courts decline to infer specific intent. See, e.g, Memory Integrity II, 144 F. Supp. 3d
`
`at l 195. In Memory Integrity, the court dismissed the plaintiff’ 5 induced infringement
`
`claims twice: first with the original complaint, and then again after the plaintiff was
`
`granted leave to amend. See generally Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp, No.
`3:15—Cv-00262-Sl, 2015 WL 4251026 (D. Or. July 13, 2015) (“Memory Integrity 1”);
`
`Memory Integrity II. In Memory Integrity I, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted
`
`with specific intent because it continued to provide instructions and technical support
`
`regarding the accused products. 2015 'WL 4251026, at *2—3. The court observed,
`
`however, that the pleadings were silent on whether the instructions taught an infringing
`
`use; moreover, the pleadings did not allege that the defendant advertised the accused
`
`product for use in an infringing manner. Id. at *2-3. Accordingly, because the plaintiff
`
`pled “no specific facts regarding the instructions and technical support provided by [the
`
`defendant],” the court determined there was “nothing sufficient to permit the inference
`
`that [the defendant] specifically intended that its customers use its products in an
`
`infringing manner.” Id. at *3.
`
`The plaintiff returned with an amended complaint in Memory Integrity II, in which
`
`it added dozens of factual allegations, including several examples of the instructions and
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`technical support provided by the defendant. 144 F. Supp. 3d at 1196. However, these
`
`22
`
`examples “[did] not teach how to use [the accused products] to infringe [the
`
`ORDER - 10 ’
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 11 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 11 of 14
`
`patents-in-suit], but simply describe how the [accused products] work.” Id. Because the
`
`examples in the pleadings did not instruct on how to engage in infringing uses, the factual
`
`allegations “only establish[ed] that [the defendant] described features of the company’s
`
`own products”—actions that evince “ordinary acts incident to product distribution” rather
`
`than “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct.” Id. (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted) (quoting Meiro—Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc, 545 U.S. at 937).
`
`The pleadings here resemble the allegations in Memory Integrity. Although
`
`CyWee asserts that HTC continued to create and disseminate product manuals,
`
`instructions, and marketing materials, it offers no specific details about those promotional
`
`and instructional materials. (See Am. Compl.) The court agrees with CyWee that it is
`
`not required to identify specific instructions at this stage. (See Resp. at 8); Bill ofLading,
`
`681 F.3d at 1339. But without any inkling as to what HTC asserted in those materials,
`
`the court is unable to discern whether HTC “touted the benefits of the accused products
`
`in ways that track the asserted patents” or taught “how to use the [accused products] to
`
`infringe [the patents-in-suit],” rather than “simply describ[ing] how the [accused
`
`products] work.”4 See Memory Integrity II, 144 F. Supp. 3d at 1195-96. As such, the
`
`court cannot reasonably infer from CyWee’s pleadings that HTC specifically intended for
`
`1O
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`//
`
`19
`
`//
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`4 In its response, CyWee alleges that HTC advertises infringing use and provides
`instructions and a video specific to the motion—detection features of its accused products. (See
`Resp. at 10.) However, the court may not consider this material because it was neither included
`nor referred to in CyWee’s amended complaint. See Daniels—Hall v. Nai’l Educ. Ass ’71, 629 F.3d
`992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`ORDER - 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 12 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 12 of 14
`
`its distributors, resellers, or end—users of its accused products to infringe upon the
`
`Patents—in-suit.5 See Memory Integrity I, 2015 WL 4251026, at *3.
`
`CyWee argues that the attachments to its amended complaint, namely the claim
`
`charts and Dr. Gans’s declaration, permit the court to reasonably infer HTC’s specific
`
`intent. (See ~Resp. at 6—7.) The court disagrees. Although the claim charts allow the
`
`court to infer that HTC had knowledge regarding its end-users’ infringement, see supra
`
`§ III.B. 1, the claim charts do not demonstrate anything—directly or circumstantially—
`
`about HTC’s intent. Indeed, the vast majority of the screenshots included in the claim
`
`charts do not derive from HTC at all: Only one out of the 22 screenshots originated from
`
`(See ’438 Claim Chart; ’97 8 Claim Chart.) Nor does Dr. Gans opine on HTC or
`HTC.
`any of its products; Instead, he describes only his understanding ofthe technology
`
`behind the Patents-in—suit and its advantages over prior art. (See generally Gans. Decl.)
`
`None of the attachments include factual assertions that allow the court to draw any
`
`reasonable inferences regarding HTC’s state of mind.
`
`Because CyWee does not plead sufficient factual allegations regarding HTC’S 1
`
`Continued actions after HTC learned of the alleged infringement, the court cannot
`
`reasonably infer that HTC specifically intended its distributors, resellers, or end users to
`
`5 To the extent CyWee is relying only on HTC’s continued sales of the accused products,
`such sales alone do not support an inference that HTC specifically intended to induce
`infringement. The court agrees with Memory Integrity 11 that such reasoning is inconsistent with
`the Federal Circuit’s reasoning in Bill ofLading. See 144 F. Supp. 3d at 1195. In Bill ofLading,
`the Federal Circuit went “far beyond considering whether the defendant continued to sell the
`allegedly infiinging products” and considered, in addition, the content of the defendant’s
`advertisements and product literature. Id. (citing Bill ofLading, 681 F.3d at 1341—43).
`Accordingly, the court will not infer specific intent from the continued sales of the accused
`products alone.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`ORDER — l2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 13 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 13 of 14
`
`infringe the Patents—in—suit. Accordingly, on this ground, the court grants HTC’s motion
`
`to dismiss CyWee’s induced infringement claims.
`
`C.
`
`Leave to Amend
`
`As a general rule, when a court grants a motion to dismiss, the court should
`
`dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc,
`
`316 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Ciij. 15(a)). The policy
`
`favoring amendment is to be applied with “extreme liberality.” Id. at 1051. In
`
`determining whether dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate, courts consider
`
`such factors as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
`repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice
`
`to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of
`
`amendment. Fomcm v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
`
`CyWee requests leave to amend its complaint should the court grant HTC’s
`
`motion (Resp. at 9-11), and HTC does not oppose amendment (Reply (Dkt. # 40) at 8).
`
`The court agrees. There is no evidence of undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on
`
`CyWee’s part, nor is there any indication that HTC will suffer prejudice if the court
`
`permits amendment, especially in light of HTC’s lack of opposition to amendment. See
`F(man, 371 U.S. at 182. Further, although CyWee has previously amended its
`
`complaint, it amended as of right and without any indication from the ecurt that the
`original complaint was defective. See id. Finally, it is not clear that the deficiencies in
`
`the complaint could not be cured by amendment. See id. at 182. Indeed, CyWee cites
`
`material in its responsive briefing that it “expects to cite” if given a chance to amend.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`ORDER — 13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 14 of 14
`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/01/18 Page 14 of 14
`
`(Resp. at 11.) The court therefore grants CyWee leave to amend its induced infringement
`
`claims Within ten (10) days of the entry of this order.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS HTC’s motion to dismiss CyWee’s
`
`claims of induced infringement (Dkt. # 35). The court DISMISSES CyWee’s induced .
`
`infringement claims Without prejudice and GRANTS CyWee leave to amend those
`
`claims Within ten (10) days of the date of this order.
`
`Datedthis1‘:dayofMarch2018. Q
`
`JAMES%L.ROBARTUnitedtates DistrictJudge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`713
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`ORDER — 14
`
`