`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 28
`
`The Honorable James L. Robart
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`DATABRICKS, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No.: 2:24-cv-01417-JLR
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS,
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER
`OR STAY
`
`JAMES WEISFIELD, RIAD CHUMMUN,
`ASCEND IP, LLC, ASCEND INNOVATION
`MANAGEMENT, LLC, MIND FUSION,
`LLC, BYTEWEAVR, LLC,
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`DECEMBER 10, 2024
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS,
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 
`
`AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................4 
`
`I. 
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
`TO STATE A CLAIM .........................................................................................................4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`The Court should dismiss the PTPA claim because the complaint
`fails to plausibly plead an “assertion of patent infringement” as
`defined by the PTPA. ...............................................................................................5 
`
`The Court should dismiss the CPA claim under the Noerr-
`Pennington doctrine because the alleged CPA violation is filing
`patent cases and Databricks fails to plausibly plead the sham
`litigation exception...................................................................................................6 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Databricks fails to plausibly plead that the Asserted Patents
`are invalid or not infringed. .........................................................................8 
`
`Databricks fails to plausibly plead that “the [ByteWeavr]
`lawsuit conceals ‘an attempt to interfere directly with the
`business relationships of a competitor.’” ...................................................12 
`
`The California Motor Transport test for Noerr-Pennington
`immunity does not apply here. ...................................................................13 
`
`The Court should apply Noerr-Pennington immunity and
`dismiss the CPA claim. ..............................................................................13 
`
`The Court should dismiss the CPA claim because it is preempted
`by federal patent law. .............................................................................................14 
`
`The Court should dismiss the CPA claim for failure to allege
`“trade” or “commerce” “directly or indirectly affecting the people
`of the State of Washington.” ..................................................................................15 
`
`The Court should dismiss the CPA claim because Databricks lacks
`standing. .................................................................................................................16 
`
`The Court should dismiss the civil conspiracy claim because
`Databricks failed to plausibly plead a CPA claim, under Noerr-
`Pennington, and as preempted by federal patent law. ...........................................18 
`
`II. 
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THIS CASE, OR ALTERNATIVELY
`STAY OR TRANSFER IT UNDER THE FIRST-TO-FILE RULE. ................................18 
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - i
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The First-to-File rule. .............................................................................................18 
`
`The Court should apply the first-to-file rule here. .................................................19 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`ByteWeavr’s EDTX case was filed first. ...................................................19 
`
`The parties are substantially the same in both cases. .................................19 
`
`The issues are substantially the same in both cases. ..................................20 
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................21 
`
`CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................22 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - ii
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Secs., Ltd.,
`539 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................14, 15
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. LightGuide, Inc.,
`2023 WL 7328969 (W.D. Wash. 2023) ...................................................................................19
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`BE & K Const. Co. v. N.L.R.B.,
`536 U.S. 516 (2002) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Bewley v. CVS Health Corp.,
`2017 WL 5158443 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2017) ......................................................................20
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys. Inc.,
`157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................7, 11
`
`Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited,
`404 U.S. 508 (1972) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army,
`611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979) ...................................................................................................19
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................6
`
`CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`2022 WL 118955 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2022) ............................................................................4
`
`Dwyer v. J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp.,
`13 P.3d 240 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) .........................................................................................16
`
`Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.,
`365 U.S. 127 (1961) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`EcoDisc Tech. AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp.,
`711 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .....................................................................................6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - iii
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Jt. Exec. Bd. of
`Culinary Workers,
`542 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1976) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Futurewei Tech., Inc. v. Acacia Rsch. Corp.,
`737 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................18, 19
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................4
`
`Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,
`105 Wash.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986)...................................................................................15
`
`K.S. v. Ambassador Programs, Inc.,
`2010 WL 1629247 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2010) ......................................................................16
`
`Kohn L. Grp., Inc., v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc.,
`787 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................19, 20
`
`Kottle v. Nw. Kidney Ctrs.,
`146 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Liberty Lake Invs., Inc. v. Magnuson,
`12 F.3d 155 (9th Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................11
`
`Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd.,
`781 F.2d 861 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..................................................................................................11
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ...........................................................................................................16, 17
`
`Lyon v. Caterpillar, Inc.,
`194 F.R.D. 206 (E.D. Pa. 2000) ...............................................................................................16
`
`Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Computing III, Inc.,
`2023 WL 5332996 (W.D. Wash. 2023) .............................................................................19, 21
`
`McMillin v. Foster City,
`2012 WL 2568207 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012) ..............................................................................6
`
`Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.,
`141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................8, 11
`
`United States ex rel. Osinek v. Permanente Med Grp., Inc.,
`601 F. Supp. 3d 536 (N.D. Cal. 2022) .....................................................................................20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - iv
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Prof’l Real Estate Inv’rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.,
`508 U.S. 49 (1993) (PRE) ......................................................................................................7, 8
`
`SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC,
`580 U.S. 328 (2017) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`SMIC v. Innovative Foundry Techs. LLC,
`473 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................20
`
`Sorrell Holdings, LLC v. Infinity Headwear & Apparel, LLC,
`2024 WL 413432 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2024) ..............................................................................11
`
`Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
`437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P.,
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................................7
`
`Swangler v. Cherne Contracting Corp.,
`2021 WL 6332532 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2021) ..........................................................................20
`
`USS-POSCO Indus. v. Contra Costa Cnty. Bldg. & Const.,
`31 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................13
`
`Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co.,
`227 U.S. 8 (1913) .......................................................................................................................7
`
`Walsh v. Microsoft Corp.,
`63 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (W.D. Wash. 2014) .................................................................................16
`
`Wilson v. State,
`84 Wash. App. 332, 929 P.2d 448 (1996) ................................................................................18
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ........................................................................................................................14, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ................................................................................................................................8
`
`RCW 19.35.010, et seq ....................................................................................................................5
`
`RCW 19.86.010(2) .........................................................................................................................16
`
`RCW 19.86.020 .............................................................................................................................16
`
`RCW 19.350.010(1) .........................................................................................................................5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) .............................................................................................................. passim
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - v
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a patent case masquerading as a Consumer Protection Act case. ByteWeavr, a
`Texas limited liability company, filed a patent infringement case against Databricks, a Delaware
`corporation, in the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) on March 8, 2024. The complaint alleges
`that Databricks infringed certain claims of seven patents (the Asserted Patents) owned solely by
`ByteWeavr.1 Databricks answered and alleged that the Asserted Patents are invalid and/or not
`infringed as affirmative defenses. The Texas case has been underway for over six months, with
`deadlines set for claim construction, the final pretrial conference, and jury selection just one year
`from now, on November 17, 2025. Discovery has commenced.
`On September 6, 2024, six months after the Texas case was filed, Databricks filed this
`case in the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the same Asserted
`Patents are invalid and not infringed. It names as defendants the Texas plaintiff ByteWeavr,
`LLC, ByteWeavr’s parent and sole member Mind Fusion, LLC, Ascend IP, LLC, Ascend
`Innovation Management, LLC, and Washington businessmen James Weisfield and Riad
`Chummun (collectively Defendants). The complaint alleges that Defendants conspired to file the
`Texas ByteWeavr patent case against Databricks even though none of these Defendants, except
`only ByteWeavr, hold any rights to bring causes of action on the Asserted Patents. The only
`alleged injury is that Databricks has had to incur legal fees and costs to defend the Texas
`ByteWeavr case. So this is a case to recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending a
`patent case currently pending in the EDTX before the Texas court has ruled on the merits.
`To disguise the true nature of this case, Databricks lists seven other non-party entities and
`alleges that they have collectively filed a score of other unspecified patent cases in Texas,
`Illinois, and California, but none of those other cases include Databricks as a defendant or have
`any relevance to this case. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 66-76. And it alleges, mostly on “information and
`belief,” common corporate circumstances between parent and subsidiary entities, for example,
`
`
`1 ByteWeavr is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733 (the “‘733 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752 (the
`“‘752 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,965,897 (the “‘897 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,082,474 (the “‘474 patent”), U.S.
`Patent No. 8,275,827 (the “‘827 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,862,488 (the “‘488 patent”), and U.S. Reissued Patent
`No. RE42153 (the “‘153 patent”) (collectively the Asserted Patents).
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - 1
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`that the Defendants have used the limited liability company form to limit liability to the LLC,
`that some entities are a subsidiary of another entity, that some entities do not lease office space,
`that parent entities bought patents and assigned them to subsidiaries, and other quotidian entity
`circumstances. It alleges “on information and belief” that the entities are undercapitalized based
`primarily on the allegation that their patent portfolios, which comprise hundreds of patents, are
`“worthless” because all of the patents are allegedly invalid or not infringed. And it speculates
`that some of the entities might have engaged attorneys working on a contingent fee basis on the
`patent cases. None of these allegations amount to anything nefarious much less illegal.
`Databricks tries to make these common lawful corporate circumstances sound sinister by
`quoting findings by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and by the Washington legislature in
`the Patent Troll Prevention Act (PTPA) about the impact of Patent Asserting Entities (PAEs).
`But it does not plead an FTC claim and it has admitted that it has no claim under the PTPA. See
`ECF No. 21 at 1 n.1. Databricks festoons its complaint with false, scandalous, and defamatory
`allegations that Washington businessmen Jim Weisfield and Riad Chummun are “ringleaders” of
`a “scheme” of “extortion.”2 And the alleged objective of this “scheme” is to “extort” nuisance
`value settlements from defendants in patent infringement cases. But it does not allege that
`Databricks was ever offered a nuisance value settlement or any settlement at all.
`Databricks’s effort to dress up its patent case—essentially a declaratory judgment action
`on its EDTX invalidity and non-infringement defenses—as a CPA case fails. The assertion of
`patents in litigation is immune under the First Amendment right to petition the courts and the
`Noerr-Pennington doctrine. And federal patent law preempts state law claims arising from filing
`patent cases. The complaint fails to plausibly plead “trade” or “commerce” as defined by the
`CPA because none of the alleged Texas, Illinois, and California cases directly affect the people
`of the State of Washington. Databricks has no standing to assert a Washington CPA claim
`because it is not a citizen or resident of the State of Washington and because the only alleged
`injury is speculative, contingent, and hypothetical. And with no viable CPA violation,
`
`2 ECF No. 1 at 12:25-13:1, 1:17-19, 1:24-25, 2:10-12, 2:25-26, 2:27-28, 3:14-17, 6:27-7:2, 7:18-21, 9:6-7,
`12:25-26, 12:26-13:1, 13:21, 15:15-16, 16:10-11, 16:15-16, 19:26-28, 20:2-4, 23:12-14, 23:27-24:2, 24:2-6, 24:25-
`28, 25:11-13, 28:1-3, 28:7-8, 23:11-13, 28:25-27, 28:27-28, 29:10-12, 29:14-15, 29:18-20, 30:10.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - 2
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Databricks fails to plead a civil conspiracy to commit any unlawful act or a lawful act by
`unlawful means. These claims should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
`Stripped of their CPA and civil conspiracy costumes, the complaint alleges patent claims.
`All of them are grounded on a common allegedly wrongful act, that the defendants have made
`“patent infringement assertions in bad faith,”3 because the Asserted Patents are allegedly not
`valid,4 and/or not infringed.5 These claims arise from Defendants’ patent infringement cases,
`and their right to petition the government is protected by the First Amendment and the Noerr-
`Pennington doctrine. The only exception is for sham litigation, which requires Databricks to
`plausibly plead that ByteWeavr’s Texas patent infringement case—and any other patent case
`allegedly in furtherance of the conspiracy—is objectively baseless such that no litigant could
`reasonably expect success on the merits. And the claims are premised on allegations that the
`asserted patents are invalid or not infringed, and they seek to recover attorney’s fees and costs
`incurred in patent cases. Accordingly, they are preempted by federal patent law unless
`Databricks plausibly alleges bad faith under the same “objectively baseless” standard applied to
`Noerr-Pennington sham litigation. That burden puts the validity and infringement of all patents
`allegedly asserted in furtherance of the conspiracy in Texas, Illinois, and California district
`courts squarely at issue here in this case.
`Furthermore, this Court should apply the first-to-file rule and dismiss this case, or
`alternatively either stay it pending the outcome of the core validity and infringement issues
`pending in the EDTX, or transfer it to the EDTX.6 Litigating the validity and infringement of the
`seven Asserted Patents here is burdensome and wasteful of party and judicial resources where
`those issues have been before the district court in Texas for over six months, are currently in
`
`
`3 Id. at 1:18-19, 1:22-23, 1:26-2:1, 2:4-5, 25:10-11, 25:23-26, 27:28-28:1, 28:1-3, 29:10-12, 29:16-20, 29:20-23,
`29:23-26, 30:1-2, 30:3-5.
`4 Id.at 1:20-21, 2:14-15, 16:7-10, 16:14-15, 17:9-11, 17:27-18:1, 18:5-8, 18:6-8, 18:9-12, 18:16-18, 19:3-5,
`19:9-10, 19:11-13, 19:21-23, 19:24-25, 19:26-28, 23:11-12, 25:10-11, 27:28-28:1, 29:10-12, 29:26-30:1, 30:3-5.
`5 Id.at (2:15-16, 12:26-13:1, 16:7-10, 25:23-26, 27:5-9, 27:10-13, 27:28-28:1, 28:25-27, 29:10-12, 29:20-23,
`29:23-26, 30:1-2, 30:3-5)
`6 The other 24 unspecified cases filed by non-parties name-checked in paragraphs 66-75 of the Complaint are
`window dressing. There are only conclusory allegations that the scores of unspecified patents asserted in those
`cases are invalid or not infringed, but even if Databricks amended with factual allegations about the invalidity or
`infringement of these patents its CPA claim would be preempted by federal patent law and immune under the Noerr-
`Pennington doctrine.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - 3
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`discovery, and will be tried to a jury just one year from now. Determining the validity and
`infringement of the same seven Asserted Patents in two different forums also presents a serious
`risk of conflicting results.
`The Databricks complaint here is an effort to perform an end run on the EDTX and obtain
`an alternative forum for Databricks’s invalidity and non-infringement defenses. And it
`prematurely seeks an award of attorney’s fees here that are incurred in the EDTX before that
`court has ruled on the merits and decided whether attorney’s fees may be awarded under federal
`patent law. This Court should extend comity to the Texas district court, not try to preempt it.
`Defendants respectfully request that this Court decline to exercise jurisdiction and dismiss this
`case, stay it pending resolution of the core validity and infringement issues in the EDTX, or
`transfer it to the EDTX where it belongs.
`
`AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE
`A CLAIM
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to dismiss any complaint
`that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive
`a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
`plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To be plausible, the claim’s allegations must include “factual content
`that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
`misconduct alleged,” based on “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
`unlawfully.” Id. “[E]very element of each cause of action must be supported by specific factual
`allegations.” CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 118955, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12,
`2022). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
`statements, do not suffice.” Id. And the Court is not required to accept as true “allegations that
`are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact ....” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536
`F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663.7
`
`7 For example, the complaint includes 161 allegations “[u]pon information and belief.”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - 4
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Court should dismiss the PTPA claim because the complaint fails to
`plausibly plead an “assertion of patent infringement” as defined by the
`PTPA.
`
`Databricks has recently denied that it is making any claim under the PTPA. RCW
`19.35.010, et seq; ECF No. 21 at 1 n.1. But the complaint alleges the PTPA. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 63.
`Databricks recently served document requests demanding “all documents and communications”
`regarding the PTPA. The PTPA makes bad faith “assertions” of patents a CPA violation, and
`Databricks alleges bad faith patent assertions (“assert,” “asserted,” “assertion”) sixty-nine times
`in the complaint. To the extent that a PTPA claim is alleged in the complaint, that claim should
`be formally dismissed now for failure to state a claim.
`To plead a claim under the PTPA, the complaint must allege one or more of the acts
`constituting “assertion of patent infringement.” The PTPA defines “assertion of patent
`infringement” specifically to cover four types of acts:
`
`(1) “Assertion of patent infringement” means:
`(a) Sending or delivering a demand to a target;
`(b) Threatening a target with litigation asserting, alleging, or
`claiming that the target has engaged in patent infringement;
`(c) Sending or delivering a demand to the customers of a target; or
`(d) Otherwise making claims or allegations, other than those made
`in litigation against a target, that a target has engaged in patent
`infringement or that a target should obtain a license to a patent
`in order to avoid litigation.
`RCW 19.350.010(1). Here, the complaint does not allege that defendants sent or delivered a
`“demand” (defined in the statute as “a letter, an email, or any other communication asserting that
`a person has engaged in patent infringement”). Id. at (3). The complaint does not allege that
`defendants threatened Databricks with patent infringement litigation. It does not allege that any
`defendant sent or delivered any “demand” to any customers of Databricks. And it does not
`allege that the defendants otherwise made claims or allegations of patent infringement “other
`than those made in litigation” or that any defendant should obtain a license to avoid patent
`litigation. Nor does the complaint allege any communication by any of the non-parties in the 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - 5
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`unspecified cases in paragraphs 66-76. Accordingly, the complaint fails to plausibly plead a
`claim for relief under the PTPA.
`
`B.
`
`The Court should dismiss the CPA claim under the Noerr-Pennington
`doctrine because the alleged CPA violation is filing patent cases and
`Databricks fails to plausibly plead the sham litigation exception.
`
`Where the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is implicated, courts in the Ninth Circuit impose a
`heightened pleading burden upon the party asserting that immunity does not exist—here,
`Databricks—because when a party “seeks damages . . . for conduct which is prima facie
`protected by the First Amendment, the danger that the mere pendency of the action will chill the
`exercise of First Amendment rights requires more specific allegations than would otherwise be
`required.” Kottle v. Nw. Kidney Ctrs., 146 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 1998) (alteration in
`original); see also McMillin v. Foster City, 2012 WL 2568207, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012);
`EcoDisc Tech. AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1083 (C.D. Cal.
`2010). The party denying immunity must explain in its pleadings exactly why the alleged
`conduct is not protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v.
`San Francisco Local Jt. Exec. Bd. of Culinary Workers, 542 F.2d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 1976);
`McMillin, 2012 WL 2568207, at *13. If it fails to do so, even at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the court
`must dismiss the claim and thereby preserve the “breathing space” afforded to First Amendment
`guarantees. Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 927, 931-33 (9th Cir. 2006).
`Under Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S.
`127 (1961), the act of petitioning the government for relief is presumptively shielded from
`liability by the First Amendment against certain types of claims. See BE & K Const. Co. v.
`N.L.R.B., 536 U.S. 516, 525 (2002) (quoting Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404
`U.S. 508, 511 (1972)). This immunity applies specifically to claims based on allegations that the
`defendant filed allegedly frivolous patent infringement cases to obtain nuisance value
`settlements—the core allegation of all claims asserted in the complaint here. Content Extraction
`& Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER OR STAY - 6
`005148-11/2861957 V1
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-01417-JLR Document 23 Filed 11/12/24 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The complaint alleges that the Defendants and other non-party entities conspired to file
`patent infringement suits asserting invalid and/or non-infringed patents to obtain nuisance value
`settlements. It identifies these other patent cases only as the Texas ByteWeavr case against