Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:269
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`John P. Schnurer, Bar No. 185725
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`Yun (Louise) Lu, Bar No. 253114
`LLu@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera, Bar No. 314664
`KCanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`Telephone: 858.720.5700
`Facsimile: 858.720.5799
`Attorneys for Defendants
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile
`Communication Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL Creative
`Cloud Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC., HUIZHOU
`TCL MOBILE COMMUNICATION
`CO., LTD., and SHENZHEN TCL
`CREATIVE CLOUD TECHNOLOGY
`CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`(LEAD CASE)
`Case No. 2:20-cv-01252-GW-ASx
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`DEFENDANTS’
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`DISMISS THE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
`TO STATE A CLAIM
`Hearing Date: April 20, 2020
`Time: 8:30 AM
`Before: Hon. George H. Wu
`United States Courthouse
`Courtroom 9D, 9th Floor
`
`
`MEMO ISO MTD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:270
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ’941 Patent .............................................. 2
`
`The Alleged Infringement ...................................................................... 3
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................... 4
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 6
`
`A. Ancora’s Insufficient Allegations Fail to State a Claim ........................ 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Ancora Fails to Identify the Devices or Systems that Allegedly
`Practice the Patented Method ...................................................... 6
`
`Ancora Fails to Allege that the “Accused Products” Have the
`Components and Perform the Steps Claimed by the Patented
`Method ......................................................................................... 8
`
`Ancora Fails to Allege that TCL Controls or Directs the Owners
`of the Accused Devices ............................................................. 12
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`MEMO ISO MTD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-i-
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:271
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 15
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`709 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 16
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................... passim
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................... passim
`Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`824 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 5
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-2026, 2017 WL 679116 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2017) ................................. 6
`Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc.,
`269 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................... 5, 6
`Disc Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc.,
`888 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 12, 13
`e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-05790, 2016 WL 4427209 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) .......................... 9
`Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.,
`51 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 4, 16
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 14, 15
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.,
`6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................... 14
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp.,
`656 F. App’x 504 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 15
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 5
`Moore v. Dept. of Children and Family Servs.,
`No. 16-cv-0046, 2016 WL 183640 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016) ................................ 7
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 9
`
`MEMO ISO MTD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:272
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 6, 7
`Ricoh. Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Comput. Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 8, 14, 15
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 6
`Spencer v. DHI Mortg. Co., Ltd.,
`642 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................ 6, 10
`Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................... 16
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ............................................................................................ 6, 7
`Van Snowden v. Cazares,
`No. 12-cv-3443, 2016 WL 7442655 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) .............................. 7
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ................................................................................................ 4, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ...................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ...................................................................................................... 4
`Other Authorities
`5C Wright & Miller Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1376 (3d ed.) .................................... 6
`Rules
`F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................ 1, 4, 5, 6
`F.R.C.P. 84 .................................................................................................................. 5
`F.R.C.P. - Appendix of Forms .................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`MEMO ISO MTD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-iii-
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:273
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc. (“Ancora”) alleges that defendants TCT
`Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen
`TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively “TCL”) infringe U.S. Patent
`No. 6,411,941 (“’941 Patent”). Because the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 24) fails
`to state a plausible claim for relief under the Supreme Court’s Iqbal/Twombly
`standard, TCL moves the Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
`The Amended Complaint fails to give TCL fair notice of the factual and legal
`bases supporting Ancora’s claim that TCL directly infringes the ʼ941 Patent, and
`the Amended Complaint should thus be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6) for at least the following reasons:
`1.
`Ancora fails to identify the accused instrumentality. Although the ’941
`Patent contains only method claims, Ancora does not identify or describe the series
`of steps that supposedly practice the claimed method (i.e., an accused process).
`Instead, it purports to identify “Accused Products,” but the Amended Complaint
`contradicts itself about which products are accused. It initially identifies several
`smartphones, but elsewhere identifies smartphones in apparent combination with
`other non-smartphone devices.
`2.
`Ancora alleges no facts showing which actions taken by the “Accused
`Products” correspond to the asserted method. Such allegations are necessary to state
`a claim because the technology is not so simple that the claim can be understood
`without them, the patent itself provides little to no guidance on key claim elements,
`and the accusations are directed at third-party technology.
`3.
`Ancora alleges no facts showing that TCL controls or directs the use of
`the accused smartphones at the time of the alleged infringement—after TCL has sold
`them to end users. Ancora’s allegation that TCL preprograms the devices to perform
`some (or perhaps all) of the claimed method steps is legally insufficient.
`
`MEMO ISO MTD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:274
`
`
`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
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A. The Alleged Invention of the ’941 Patent
`The ’941 Patent, entitled “Method of Restricting Software Operation within a
`License Limitation,” describes a method of preventing unauthorized software use by
`checking whether a software program is operating within a license and preventing
`use of the program if it is not. (ʼ941 Patent, Title, Abstract.) The written description
`distinguishes known methods for verifying software licenses, which were allegedly
`vulnerable to hacking. (Id. at 1:19–35.)
`According to the written description, the ʼ941 Patent’s method overcame those
`problems by using the memory associated with the computer’s BIOS, rather than
`other memory space, to store the license information used in the verification process.
`(See, e.g., id. at 1:46–2:5, 3:4–14.) The patent explains that BIOS memory is much
`harder to hack than other memory locations, thereby making the BIOS-based
`licensing method more secure than prior art methods. (Id. at 3:4–14.)
`The ʼ941 Patent includes only method claims; no apparatus or system claims.
`(Id. at 6:58–8:64.) The Amended Complaint asserts “at least” Claim 1 (Amended
`Complaint at ¶ 23), which is reproduced below:
`1. A method of restricting software operation within a license for use
`with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a
`BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method
`comprising the steps of:
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable,
`nonvolatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure
`accommodating data that includes at least one license record,
`verifying the program using at least the verification structure from the
`erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`-2-
`MEMO ISO MTD
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:275
`
`
`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
`
`(’941 Patent, 6:59–7:4.)
`The Alleged Infringement
`B.
`Although the asserted claim is a method claim, the Amended Complaint does
`not identify an accused process. (See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 25–51.) Instead, the
`Amended Complaint labels several TCL smartphones as “Accused Products.” (Id. at
`¶ 27.) Elsewhere, however, the Amended Complaint identifies the smartphones in
`apparent combination with other hardware (e.g., servers) as the “Accused Products.”
`(Id. at ¶ 31.) So it is unclear whether Ancora is accusing devices or accusing a
`system.
`Although Ancora does not identify an accused process, its Amended
`Complaint is directed toward actions with a general connection to TCL’s alleged
`“over-the-air (‘OTA’) software update”—namely, when new versions of the Android
`operating system are installed on end users’ smartphones. (Amended Complaint
`¶¶ 31–32 (including “Software update for the BlackBerry KEYone (BBB100-1)” and
`“Find and update the software version on your ALCATEL ONETOUCH PIXI 7”
`webpages cited therein).)
`Ancora alleges that TCL takes an action that initiates the OTA update on end
`users’ smartphones (id.), but contradicts itself about whether this action is allegedly
`a step of the asserted method or if it is merely the action that triggers the performance
`of the claimed steps (see id. at ¶¶ 26, 31–32, 34, 36–37, 40–43). Likewise, Ancora
`does not specify which steps supposedly performed by the accused smartphones
`correspond to the claimed method steps, such as “using an agent . . .” and “selecting
`a program.” (See id. at ¶¶ 33–43.)
`Because its infringement theory relies on devices outside the possession and
`custody of TCL—i.e., end users’ smartphones—Ancora alleges that TCL controls or
`directs the smartphone’s performance of each step, so that TCL should be deemed
`the direct infringers. (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 26, 42–50.) Ancora does not,
`however, allege the factual basis for such “control” or “direction.” (See id.)
`-3-
`MEMO ISO MTD
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:276
`
`
`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
`
`Finally, Ancora limits its claims to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(a); it does not allege any form of indirect infringement under § 271(b) or (c).
`(Amended Complaint ¶ 26.)
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss
`a complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court has recognized that “a
`plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires
`more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
`(2007) (quotations omitted). “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for
`relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “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. at 678.
`When evaluating a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court engages in a two-step
`process. “First, a court should ‘identif[y] pleadings that, because they are no more
`than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.’” Eclectic Props. E.,
`LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal,
`556 U.S. at 679 (alterations in Eclectic Props.)). “Then, a court should ‘assume the[ ]
`veracity’ of ‘well pleaded factual allegations’ and ‘determine whether they plausibly
`give rise to an entitlement to relief.’” Id.
`A plausible claim does more than merely allege entitlement to relief; instead
`“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative
`level.” Id. at 995. Thus, a plaintiff’s “obligation to provide the grounds of his
`entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
`recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
`555 (quotation and modification marks omitted).
`The purpose of the federal pleading requirement is “to give the defendant fair
`notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. (quoting Conley
`-4-
`MEMO ISO MTD
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:277
`
`
`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
`
`v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)) (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted)
`(emphasis added); accord Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 824 F.3d
`1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he complaint ‘must [provide] sufficient allegations
`of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself
`effectively.’” (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216, (9th Cir. 2011))); Davis
`v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 2001) (“the essential function of a
`complaint under the civil rules . . . is to put the defendant on notice of the plaintiff’s
`claim”).
`In the context of a patent infringement action, although claims of direct
`infringement were previously governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and
`the Appendix of Forms, those rules were abrogated effective December 1, 2015.
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2017). It
`is now largely settled that both direct and indirect infringement claims are subject to
`the Twombly/Iqbal standard. See Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 16-cv-2026,
`2017 WL 679116, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2017) (collecting cases from this Circuit).
`“[A] court need not ‘accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly
`subject to judicial notice or by exhibit,’ such as the claims and the patent
`specification.” Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 913
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 570 F. App’x 927, 931
`(Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2000 (2018)); see also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor
`Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,
`Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Nor is the Court required to accept as
`true bald assertions, unsupported conclusions, or unwarranted inferences. See
`Spencer v. DHI Mortg. Co., Ltd., 642 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“[A]
`court is ‘free to ignore legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted
`inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.’”
`(quoting Farm Credit Servs. v. Am. State Bank, 339 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2003))).
`In determining whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the question is not whether
`-5-
`MEMO ISO MTD
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:278
`
`
`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
`
`there may be factual disputes, but whether the factual allegations give TCL “fair
`notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550
`U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted).
`Thus, when the basis for the claim is unintelligible, it should be dismissed for
`failing to give the defendant “the notice to which he is entitled.” Davis, 269 F.3d at
`820; see also Moore v. Dept. of Children and Family Servs., No. 16-cv-0046, 2016
`WL 183640, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016) (“[U]nder rule 8 court may dismiss
`confused, ambiguous and unintelligible pleading” (citing Cafasso v. General
`Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2011))); 5C Wright &
`Miller Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1376 (3d ed.) (“If the pleading is impermissibly
`vague, the court may act under Rule 12(b)(6).”).
`In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must consider the complaint and
`its exhibits, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of
`which the court may take judicial notice. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322; see also OIP
`Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362.
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. Ancora’s Insufficient Allegations Fail to State a Claim
`Ancora Fails to Identify the Devices or Systems that
`1.
`Allegedly Practice the Patented Method
`Ancora contradicts itself about the identity of the devices or systems that
`allegedly practice the patented method, rendering the Amended Complaint so
`ambiguous that TCL lacks fair notice of Ancora’s claim. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at
`555. Dismissal is appropriate when the pleadings do not “allege enough specific facts
`to provide ‘fair notice’ of both the particular claim being asserted and ‘the grounds
`upon which [that claim] rests.’” Van Snowden v. Cazares, No. 12-cv-3443, 2016 WL
`7442655, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)
`(emphasis and alterations in Van Snowden).
`
`MEMO ISO MTD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:279
`
`
`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
`
`Ancora initially identifies several of TCL’s smartphones (e.g., “Alcatel
`3c/33x/3v/3L” and “Blackberry KeyONE”) as the “Accused Products.” (Amended
`Complaint ¶ 27.) Ancora later claims, however, that the Accused Products include
`not only the smartphones but also “servers/software” and “other devices and
`technology”: “the Accused Products include servers/software utilized by TCL to
`transmit an over-the-air (‘OTA’) software update, as well as those smartphones and
`other devices and technology . . . [.]” (Id. at ¶ 31) (emphasis added).
`The Amended Complaint’s allegations fail to give notice of which devices, or
`combinations of devices, are actually accused of performing the patented method.
`For example, Ancora could be pursuing any of these mutually exclusive bases for its
`claim: (1) that the accused smartphones perform all steps of the asserted method
`claims, but the other listed devices (e.g., “servers”) play some role in triggering the
`smartphones to perform the method; (2) that the accused smartphones perform some
`steps of the asserted method claims, the “servers/software” perform some other steps,
`and the “other devices and technology” perform the remainder of the steps; or (3)
`that the accused smartphones perform all steps and the “other devices” also perform
`all steps. The allegations are sufficiently contradictory and confusing that it may be
`that Ancora is pursuing an altogether different basis.
`Further, the mere act of providing software on a device alone does not actually
`implement steps of a method claim—an end user performs the step when he or she
`executes the software. See Ricoh. Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Comput. Inc., 550 F.3d 1325,
`1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, arguendo, even if TCL’s alleged software is allegedly
`deployed after the time of the sale of the device, the software is only unexecuted
`instructions. The accused method cannot and will not occur until an end user
`allegedly runs the software on the accused device. Ancora must therefore plead that
`TCL exercises the requisite direction or control to attribute the performance of the
`step by the user to TCL.
`
`MEMO ISO MTD
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:280
`
`
`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
`
`Ancora has not alleged which devices supposedly practice at least one of the
`claimed steps; whether they practice all or only some of the claimed steps; and, if the
`latter, which device performs which steps. Consequently, it has not provided fair
`notice of its claim, and its Amended Complaint should therefore be dismissed.
`Ancora Fails to Allege that the “Accused Products” Have the
`2.
`Components and Perform the Steps Claimed by the
`Patented Method
`Ancora alleges no facts identifying which actions performed by the accused
`smartphones (or smartphone-server/software-other-device combination, if that is its
`theory) allegedly correspond to essential elements of the asserted method. For
`example, the Amended Complaint alleges no facts identifying which components of
`the smartphones correspond to the claimed “agent,” “program,” and “verification
`structure,” and which acts correspond to “selecting [the] program” and “acting on the
`program.” (Compare ʼ941 Patent claim 1 with Amended Complaint ¶¶ 33–42.)
`Although a plaintiff “need not prove its case at the pleading stage,” the
`complaint must “place the potential infringer on notice of what activity is being
`accused of infringement.” Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). To do so, a
`plaintiff must “plausibly allege that the accused product practices each of the
`limitations found in at least one asserted claim.” e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-05790, 2016 WL 4427209, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (emphasis
`added).
`Consider the claim’s “agent” limitation. Although the asserted method claim
`requires “using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile
`memory of the BIOS” (Amended Complaint ¶ 33), Ancora alleges no facts tending
`to show that the accused products use an agent (see, e.g., Amended Complaint ¶¶ 34–
`42). The impact of this omission on denying fair notice of Ancora’s claim cannot be
`understated. The term “agent” appears nowhere in the patent other than the claims.
`-8-
`MEMO ISO MTD
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:281
`
`
`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
`
`(See ’941 Patent, 1:1-8:64.) TCL thus cannot review the written description’s
`examples of the “agent” and decipher for themselves the identity of the corresponding
`accused feature, because there are none.
`As another example, the Amended Complaint does not allege or provide a
`factual basis that the step of “selecting a program residing in the volatile memory” is
`met. Beyond alleging that the accused smartphones have “volatile memory,” the only
`allegation in the Amended Complaint regarding this element discusses only “volatile
`memory” without alleging what the program is, how the program is selected, and if
`the program resides in the volatile memory. (Compare Amended Complaint ¶ 33
`(reciting claim elements, including “the method comprising the steps of: [1] selecting
`a program residing in volatile memory”) (emphasis added) with Amended Complaint
`¶ 40 (alleging “Once the verification structure has been set up in the BIOS, the
`Accused Products are configured by TCL to reboot into recovery mode, load the OTA
`update into its volatile memory (e.g., RAM), and use the at least one license record
`from the BIOS to verify the OTA update.”).)
`Not only is the Amended Complaint vague and ambiguous as to this claim
`limitation, it also makes unsupported conclusions. Spencer v. DHI Mortg. Co., Ltd.,
`642 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“[A] court is ‘free to ignore legal
`conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal
`conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.’” (quoting Farm Credit Servs. v.
`Am. State Bank, 339 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2003)). No notice is given as to how
`this claim element is met, and therefore Ancora’s facially deficient complaint should
`be dismissed under the Iqbal/Twombly standard.
`The Amended Complaint is similarly inadequate to meet the Twombly/Iqbal
`standard regarding the claim limitation “set up a verification structure in the erasable,
`non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” As a preliminary matter regarding this term, the
`Amended Complaint does not allege that the accused TCL smartphone products have
`an “erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (See generally Amended Complaint
`-9-
`MEMO ISO MTD
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:282
`
`
`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
`
`¶¶ 34–42 (alleging that “each mobile device contains both erasable, non-volatile
`memory in the form of ROM and volatile memory in the form of RAM” (id. at ¶ 35),
`but nowhere alleging that the accused products contain a BIOS).) Despite
`emphasizing the Federal Circuit’s discussion on the patent, i.e., “the invention moves
`a software-verification structure to a BIOS location . . . the BIOS memory used for
`verification now interacts with distinct memory to perform a software verification
`function” (id. at ¶ 22 (emphasis added)), nowhere in the Amended Complaint has an
`attempt been made by Ancora to identify where the BIOS is, let alone whether the
`BIOS is erasable, or if the BIOS is non-volatile (id. at ¶¶ 37, 40). The Amended
`Complaint glosses over any required factual assertions to put TCL on notice and only
`makes a bare accusation reciting the claim language, namely that a “program running
`on one or more OTA servers owned and/or controlled by TCL set up a verification
`structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS of the Accused Products
`by transmitting to the device an OTA update.” (Id. at ¶ 37.)
`After claiming that this “OTA update contains a verification structure” (id. at
`¶ 38), the Amended Complaint makes an accusation that this “verification structure
`has been set up in the BIOS” (id. at ¶ 40). The Amended Complaint cites to and only
`includes screenshots from a third party (Google’s Android.com website (which do
`not refer to a “BIOS”), id. at ¶¶ 34-39), without connecting these in any form to
`TCL’s products. Then, the Amended Complaint summarily asserts that “the
`verification structure has been set up in the BIOS.” (Id. at ¶ 40.) In sum, the
`Amended Complaint makes no attempt to show what the accused “verification
`structure” is, how it is “set up,” if it “accommodat[es] data that includes at least once
`license record,” and whether it is “set up” in an “erasable, non-volatile memory of
`the BIOS.” These assertions alone cannot meet the proper pleading standard, and for
`this reason alone this Court should dismiss this action.
`Similarly, the Amended Complaint fails to identify how the Accused Products
`verify “the program using at least the verification structure from the erasable non-
`-10-
`MEMO ISO MTD
`Case No. 8:19-cv-0219-GW-ASx
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 37-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:283
`
`
`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
`
`volatile memory of the BIOS.” The Amended Complaint only alludes to a process
`of how this may happen (id. at ¶ 35 (“[T]he Accused Products are configured . . . and
`use the at least one license record from BIOS to verify the OTA update.”)), without
`any attempt to identify what part of the accused products constitute the claimed
`BIOS, or even state affirmatively that it exists in the accused products.
`Further, “OTA software updates” that either allegedly trigger or form part of
`the accused process (it is not clear which, see Section IV.A.1 above) concerns third
`party technology—namely Google’s Android Operating System. (Amended
`Complaint ¶¶ 34–39.)
`Ancora’s Amended Complaint is distinguishable from the complaints such as
`in Disc Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
`2018), which found that a complaint can prov