Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:291
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5780
`Phone: (213) 622-3003
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`Mark A. Cantor (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. LeRoy (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Phone: (248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`Consolidated Case
`No. 2:20-cv-01252-GW-ASx
`
`PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`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
`
`v.
`
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC.,
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE
`COMMUNICATION CO.,
`LTD., and SHENZHEN TCL
`CREATIVE CLOUD
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:292
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ‘941 Patent ............................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Factual background of the present action ........................................... 4
`
`C.
`
`Ancora’s Amended Complaint expressly describes how TCL
`infringes the asserted claim ................................................................ 5
`
`III. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`Legal standards .................................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal standards for stating a claim ........................................... 9
`
`Legal standards for pleading direct infringement ................... 10
`
`B.
`
`TCL’s arguments are unfounded .......................................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ancora’s Amended Complaint clearly identifies the TCL
`devices and systems that infringe claim 1 of the ‘941
`Patent ..................................................................................... 11
`
`The Amended Complaint places TCL “on notice” with
`respect to each claim limitation .............................................. 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The “agent” limitation.................................................. 15
`
`The “selecting a program” limitation ........................... 17
`
`The “set up a verification structure” limitation ............. 18
`
`The “verify the program” limitation ............................. 19
`
`3.
`
`TCL directs and controls the software that infringes the
`asserted claim ........................................................................ 20
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................23
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`i
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:293
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 3
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 3
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................... 10
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................... 9
`
`InCom Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., No. CV15-3011 PSG,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) .......................... 10, 15
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................. 10, 14, 15, 21, 23
`
`Pres. Techs. LLC v. Mindgeek USA Inc., No. CV17-8906-DOC,
`
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145072 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019) ........................ 14, 15
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................... 22, 23
`
`SKC Kolon PI v. Kaneka Corp., No. CV 16-05948 AG,
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182989 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017)............................ 17
`
`United States Gypsum Co. v. New NGC, Inc., No. 17-130-VAC-MPT,
`
`2017 WL 2538569 (D. Del. June 12, 2017) ................................................... 17
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ................................................................................................ 10, 20
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`ii
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:294
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ........................................................................................ 15, 21, 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`iii
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:295
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.,
`
`3
`
`Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively “TCL”)
`
`4
`
`motion omits key aspects of the present case relevant to the relief being sought.
`
`5
`
`Specifically, TCL’s motion omits that TCL filed a declaratory judgment complaint
`
`6
`
`last November. (Dkt. #1.) TCL’s complaint stated it had reviewed the infringement
`
`7
`
`allegations raised within Ancora’s earlier filed “Texas Lawsuit.” (Id., ¶¶13-15.) And
`
`8
`
`upon reviewing Ancora’s infringement allegations, TCL’s complaint alleged that the
`
`9
`
`“Accused [TCL] Products” did “not infringe and [have] not infringed any claim” of
`
`10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ‘941 Patent”). (Id., ¶20.)
`
`11
`
`But now TCL wants this Court to believe that “it is unclear whether Ancora is
`
`12
`
`accusing devices or accusing a system.” (Dkt. #37-1 at pg. 3.) TCL never explains
`
`13
`
`how or why it cannot understand the same infringement allegations it articulated were
`
`14
`
`not infringed just several months ago. Indeed, Ancora’s recently filed Amended
`
`15
`
`Complaint (Dkt. #24) that TCL now alleges is “unclear” is duplicative of Ancora’s
`
`16
`
`Texas Lawsuit complaint which TCL affirmatively alleged to this Court was not
`
`17
`
`infringed.1
`
`18
`
`Regardless, Ancora’s Amended Complaint clearly states a claim for patent
`
`19
`
`infringement by (i) identifying the asserted patent claim TCL infringes, (ii) identifying
`
`
`1 It should also be noted that TCL’s motion is a nearly duplicative copy of a motion
`filed by Sony Corporation in a separate, unrelated lawsuit. (Ex. 1.) This motion filed
`on February 10, 2020 remains undecided by the Delaware District Court. This likely
`explains why TCL fails to include the factual history pertaining to this case. But
`Sony’s motion does not apply to the present case because the facts and procedural
`history between Ancora and Sony are much different those between Ancora and TCL.
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`1
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:296
`
`
`
`1
`
`as “Accused Products” the servers and software TCL controls and deploys to infringe
`
`2
`
`the asserted claim, (iii) identifying dates on which TCL infringed the claims, and (iv)
`
`3
`
`explaining in detail and with reference to publicly available information how TCL’s
`
`4
`
`technology infringes each and every element of the asserted patent claim.2
`
`5
`
`6
`
`TCL’s present motion should be denied.
`
`II. CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`7
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ‘941 Patent
`
`8
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent has been extensively litigated. The invention is
`
`9
`
`described in multiple Federal Circuit opinions, district court opinions and U.S. Patent
`
`10
`
`& Trademark Office decisions. In 2014, the Federal Circuit explained:
`
`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 stopping the program or taking other
`
`remedial action if it is not. The specification states that methods for
`
`checking license coverage of software were known in the art at the time
`
`the inventors applied for the ‘941 patent. But some of those methods
`
`were vulnerable to hacking, the specification observes, while others were
`
`expensive and inconvenient to distribute. ‘941 patent, col. 1, lines 19-
`
`32.
`
`
`2 Moreover, based in part on TCL’s declaratory judgment action of non-infringement,
`the Court established a scheduled where Ancora will provide its preliminary
`infringement contentions to TCL this week. TCL should be required to explain why
`it claims it does not infringe as it asserted in this Court – as opposed to the procedural
`gamesmanship of the present motion.
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`2
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:297
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`The specification describes a method that it says overcomes those
`
`problems. In particular, it discloses using the memory space associated
`
`with the computer’s basic input/output system (BIOS), rather than other
`
`memory space, to store appropriately encrypted license information to be
`
`used in the verification process. See, e.g., id., col. 1, line 46, through col.
`
`2, line 5; id., col. 4, lines 45-48; id., col. 5, lines 19-24. It states that,
`
`while the contents of the BIOS memory space may be modified, the level
`
`of programming expertise needed to do so is unusually high, and the risk
`
`of accidentally damaging the BIOS and thereby rendering the computer
`
`inoperable “is too high of a risk for the ordinary software hacker to pay.”
`
`Id., col. 3, lines 4-14. Thus, the inventors stated that their method makes
`
`use of the existing computer hardware (eliminating the expense and
`
`inconvenience of using additional hardware, while storing
`
`the
`
`verification information in a space that is harder and riskier for a hacker
`
`to tamper with than storage areas used by earlier methods.
`
`16
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 733-734 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also
`
`17
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1344-1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`18
`
`In this lawsuit, Ancora asserts at least claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent against
`
`19
`
`Defendants. (Dkt. #24, ¶¶26, 33.) Claim 1 is recited below in its entirety.
`
`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:
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`3
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:298
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory;
`
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-
`
`volatile 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.
`
`8
`
`B.
`
`Factual background of the present action
`
`9
`
`Ancora filed a complaint on August 27, 2019 and an Amended Complaint on
`
`10
`
`September 12, 2019 in the Eastern District of Texas alleging TCL Corp., TCL
`
`11
`
`Communication Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCT Mobile
`
`12
`
`International Ltd., TCT Mobile, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., and TCT Mobile (US)
`
`13
`
`Holdings Inc (“Texas Defendants”) infringed the ‘941 patent. (Dkt. #1-2 – Amended
`
`14
`
`Texas Complaint; Exhibit 2 – Original Texas Complaint.) In the Texas Lawsuit, the
`
`15
`
`parties agreed and stipulated on October 7, 2019 to a 90-day extension of time to
`
`16
`
`February 4, 2020 for the Texas Defendants (i.e., TCL) to move, answer, or otherwise
`
`17
`
`respond to the Amended Complaint. (see Dkt. #18, ¶2.)
`
`18
`
`On November 12, 2019, TCL commenced this declaratory judgment action
`
`19
`
`against Ancora for noninfringement of the ‘941 patent. (“California Lawsuit”). (Dkt.
`
`20
`
`#1.) TCL served Ancora on or about November 18, 2019. Although Ancora’s initial
`
`21
`
`deadline to respond to TCL’s was December 9, 2019, both parties had stipulated to
`
`22
`
`several extensions to discuss both the Texas Lawsuit and the California Lawsuit. (Dkt.
`
`23
`
`#22.)
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`4
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:299
`
`
`
`1
`
`Following the third extension, TCL and Ancora stipulated a joint motion would
`
`2
`
`be filed to transfer and consolidate the Texas Lawsuit the California Lawsuit. Id. Both
`
`3
`
`parties also requested that the case caption for TCL’s originally filed declaratory
`
`4
`
`judgment action – i.e., the California Lawsuit – would be realigned to identify Ancora
`
`5
`
`as the plaintiff and TCL as the defendant. (Id., ¶10.)
`
`6
`
`TCL also agreed to represent in writing the TCL entities involved in alleged
`
`7
`
`Android over-the-air (“OTA”) update functionality for the Accused Products within
`
`8
`
`seven days of the transfer occurring. (Id.) Once the TCL entities were identified,
`
`9
`
`Ancora had agreed to file a single Amended Complaint. (Id.) TCL also agreed to
`
`10
`
`“make a good faith effort to provide discovery and depositions related to foreign TCL
`
`11
`
`entities within this District.” (Id.)
`
`12
`
`C. Ancora’s Amended Complaint expressly describes how TCL
`
`13
`
`14
`
`infringes the asserted claims
`
`Ancora’s Amended Complaint asserts that TCL infringes at least claim 1 of the
`
`15
`
`‘941 Patent. (Dkt. #24, ¶26.) The Amended Complaint identifies the specific devices
`
`16
`
`which run the TCL-controlled software to practice the claimed invention, which
`
`17
`
`include both TCL smartphones and “Over-the-Air” (“OTA”) update servers. (Id.,
`
`18
`
`¶¶31-32.) The Amended Complaint also identifies the specific software procedure
`
`19
`
`TCL deploys which infringe claim 1 – “over-the-air (‘OTA’) software updates.” (Id.,
`
`20
`
`¶32.) The Amended Complaint cites to an aspect of TCL’s website for performing
`
`21
`
`the accused OTA software update:
`
`https://www.att.com/devicehowto/tutorial.html#!/stepbystep/id/
`
`stepbystep_KM1231051?make=BlackBerry&model=BBB100&gsi=mp
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`5
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:300
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`(Id.)
`
`o8f8;
`
`https://support.sprint.com/support/pages/printTemplate.jsp?articleID=
`
`WServiceAdvisory_542_GKB92134-dvc9760001prd.
`
`5
`
`The Amended Complaint also identifies the aspect of the OTA software update
`
`6
`
`procedure – called “Verified Boot” that is the focus of Ancora’s infringement claim:
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`(Id., ¶34.)
`
`
`
`The Amended Complaint identifies TCL’s deployment dates for the OTA
`
`software update procedure that infringes claim 1, including but not limited to
`
`“December 16, 2016, April 25, 2017, and June 15, 2017.” (Id., ¶¶28-30.)
`
`Next, the Amended Complaint recites the limitations of asserted claim 1 and
`
`provides an example of how TCL’s OTA update procedure implemented using the
`
`Android operating system practices each limitation. (Id., ¶¶34-42.) The table below
`
`correlates the claim limitations with the infringement allegations in the Amended
`
`Complaint:
`
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`6
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:301
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Complaint Allegations
`
`Preamble: “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:”
`
`•
`
`“each mobile device contains both erasable, non-
`
`volatile memory in the form of ROM and volatile
`
`memory in the form of RAM.” (Id., ¶35.)
`
`•
`
`“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. The Accused Products are then
`
`configured by TCL to save to a partition (e.g., the “cache”
`
`or “A/B” partitions) of the erasable, non-volatile
`
`memory of its BIOS.” (Id., ¶37.)
`
`•
`
`“Alcatel 3c/33x/3v/3L; Alcatel 1c/1x/1/1t7/1T10;
`
`Alcatel A3/A3XL/A7XL/A7/A2XL/A3A; Alcatel A5;
`
`Alcatel IDOL 4S/5; Alcatel POP 4/4S/4PLUS; Alcatel
`
`PIXI
`
`4(4)/4(5)/4(6); Blackberry KeyONE;
`
`and
`
`Blackberry Key 2 (‘Accused Devices’)” (Id., ¶27.)
`
`“selecting a program
`
`•
`
`“the Accused Products are configured by TCL to
`
`residing in the volatile
`
`reboot into recovery mode, load the OTA update into its
`
`memory,”
`
`volatile memory (e.g., RAM)” (Id., ¶40.)
`
`“using an agent to set up
`
`•
`
`“a program running on one or more OTA servers
`
`a verification structure
`
`owned and/or controlled by TCL set up a verification
`
`in the erasable,
`
`structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`7
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:302
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Complaint Allegations
`
`nonvolatile memory of
`
`BIOS of the Accused Products by transmitting to the
`
`the BIOS, the
`
`device an OTA update. The Accused Products are then
`
`verification structure
`
`configured by TCL to save to a partition (e.g., the
`
`accommodating data
`
`“cache” or “A/B” partitions of the erasable, non-
`
`that includes at least one
`
`volatile memory of its BIOS.” (Id., ¶37.)
`
`license record”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Verified Boot” (Id., ¶34.)
`
`“the Accused Products are configured by TCL to
`
`reboot into recovery mode, load the OTA update into its
`
`“verifying the program
`
`volatile memory (e.g., RAM), and use the at least one
`
`using at least the
`
`license record from the BIOS to verify the OTA update.”
`
`verification structure
`
`(Id., ¶40.)
`
`from the erasable non-
`
`•
`
`In sum, as described above, once TCL has set up
`
`volatile memory of the
`
`the verification structure by transmitting to a device an
`
`BIOS, and”
`
`OTA update like those TCL provided on or about
`
`December 16, 2016, April 25, 2017, and June 15, 2017,
`
`each Accused Product is configured to automatically
`
`perform each of the remaining Claim 1 steps. (Id., ¶42.)
`
`“acting on the program
`
`•
`
`“If the OTA update is verified, the Accused
`
`according to the
`
`Products are configured to load and execute the update.”
`
`verification.”
`
`(Id., ¶41.)
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`8
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:303
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Complaint Allegations
`
`•
`
`In sum, as described above, once TCL has set up
`
`the verification structure by transmitting to a device an
`
`OTA update like those TCL provided on or about
`
`December 16, 2016, April 25, 2017, and June 15, 2017,
`
`each Accused Product is configured to automatically
`
`perform each of the remaining Claim 1 steps. (Id., ¶42.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Legal standards
`
`1.
`
`Legal standards for stating a claim
`
`To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain “a
`
`short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but the complaint
`
`must include more than mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
`
`the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
`
`(2007). The complaint must set forth enough facts, accepted as true, to “state a claim
`
`to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A claim is facially plausible “when
`
`the . . . factual content . . . allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
`
`defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`
`(2009). Deciding whether a claim is plausible is a “context-specific task that requires
`
`the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`9
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:304
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2.
`
`Legal standards for pleading direct infringement
`
`Liability for direct infringement arises when a party “without authority makes,
`
`3
`
`uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports
`
`4
`
`into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`5
`
`§ 271(a). To plead direct infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly
`
`6
`
`indicate that the accused products contain each of the limitations found in the claim.
`
`7
`
`InCom Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., No. CV15-3011 PSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319,
`
`8
`
`at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016). A plaintiff, however, “need not prove its case at the
`
`9
`
`pleading stage.” Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`10
`
`(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The complaint need only “place the
`
`11
`
`potential infringer on notice of what activity is being accused of infringement.” Id.
`
`12
`
`(internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted).
`
`13
`
`B.
`
`TCL’s arguments are unfounded
`
`14
`
`TCL makes three arguments in support of their assertion that Ancora’s
`
`15
`
`Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for patent infringement. As detailed below,
`
`16
`
`each argument lacks merit.
`
`17
`
`As a threshold matter, TCL does not dispute that they deployed the identified
`
`18
`
`OTA software updates for the identified products on the identified dates as alleged in
`
`19
`
`the Amended Complaint. TCL does not dispute that they utilize the Android operating
`
`20
`
`system in the manner identified in the Amended Complaint to automatically perform
`
`21
`
`“Verified Boot” as part of the OTA software update process.
`
`22
`
`Indeed, as part of the stipulation between the parties, TCL identified the
`
`23
`
`“entities that are involved in the provision of Android over-the-air (“OTA”) update
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`10
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:305
`
`
`
`1
`
`functionality” for the Accused Products. (Dkt. # 22, ¶10(c).) If TCL was able to
`
`2
`
`identify the correct parties to be named as part of the present lawsuit, TCL must
`
`3
`
`understand the alleged infringing devices and systems.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`1.
`
`Ancora’s Amended Complaint clearly identifies the TCL
`
`devices and systems that infringe claim 1 of the ‘941
`
`Patent
`
`TCL’s first argue the Amended Complaint is “so ambiguous” about “the
`
`8
`
`identity of the devices or systems that allegedly practice the patented method” that
`
`9
`
`Defendants lack “fair notice of Ancora’s claim.” (Op. Brf. (Dkt. #37-1) at 6-8.) Yet,
`
`10
`
`the Amended Complaint expressly identifies the products and software that infringe
`
`11
`
`the ‘941 Patent – which was also recognized by TCL’s declaratory judgment
`
`12
`
`complaint. (Dkt. #1, ¶3.) The Amended Complaint states that the “Accused Products”
`
`13
`
`include “but are not limited to” certain TCL smartphones, such as “Alcatel
`
`14
`
`3c/33x/3v/3L; Alcatel 1c/1x/1/1t7/1T10; Alcatel A3/A3XL/A7XL/A7/A2XL/A3A;
`
`15
`
`Alcatel A5; Alcatel IDOL 4S/5; Alcatel POP 4/4S/4PLUS; Alcatel PIXI
`
`16
`
`4(4)/4(5)/4(6); Blackberry KeyONE; and Blackberry Key 2.” (Dkt. #24, Complaint
`
`17
`
`¶27.) The next paragraph makes clear that “[a]t a minimum, the Accused Products
`
`18
`
`include servers/software utilized by TCL to transmit an over-the-air (“OTA”) software
`
`19
`
`update . . . .” (Id. ¶31.) As explained above, the Amended Complaint explains in detail
`
`20
`
`how TCL’s OTA update software implemented on the identified OTA servers and the
`
`21
`
`identified smartphones practice the method recited in claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent.
`
`22
`
`The Amended Complaint is unambiguous about the identity of the Accused
`
`23
`
`Products. While claim 1 is a method claim, the preamble to claim 1 recites a particular
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`11
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:306
`
`
`
`1
`
`hardware configuration on which the claimed method may be implemented: “[a]
`
`2
`
`method of restricting software operation within a license for use with a computer
`
`3
`
`including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer, and a
`
`4
`
`volatile memory area; the method comprising the steps of . . . .”3 The Amended
`
`5
`
`Complaint identifies both the phone hardware corresponding to the preamble
`
`6
`
`language as well as the particular steps of the OTA software update and Verified Boot
`
`7
`
`process which correspond to each step of the claimed method. The Amended
`
`8
`
`Complaint therefore provides TCL with “fair notice” as to how the relevant hardware
`
`9
`
`and steps in their accused technology correspond to the claim language.
`
`10
`
`TCL proposes
`
`three
`
`infringement scenarios which
`
`it contends are
`
`11
`
`“contradictory and confusing.” (Op. Brf. at 7.) But the Amended Complaint is clear
`
`12
`
`about how TCL infringes claim 1.
`
`13
`
`TCL argues that their “servers” may “trigger” the smartphones to perform the
`
`14
`
`claimed method during an OTA update. (Id. at 7.) As explained in the Amended
`
`15
`
`Complaint, that is true:
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Accused Products include servers/software utilized by TCL to transmit
`
`over-the-air (“OTA”) software updates, as well as those smartphones
`
`and other devices and technology that received from TCL, or received at
`
`TCL’s direction, an OTA update
`
`20
`
`(Dkt. #24, ¶31.)
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis has been added.
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 28 Page ID #:307
`
`
`
`1
`
`TCL next argues that software on their servers may perform “some steps” of
`
`2
`
`the asserted claim. (Op. Brf. at 7.) The Amended Complaint explains that, too, is
`
`3
`
`correct:
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`For example, during this process, 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. The Accused Products are
`
`then configured by TCL to save to a partition (e.g., the “cache” or “A/B”
`
`partitions) of the erasable, non-volatile memory of its BIOS.
`
`10
`
`(Dkt. #24, ¶37.)
`
`11
`
`Finally, TCL argues that the “smartphones” or “other devices” may
`
`12
`
`independently “perform all steps,” as distinct from the first two scenarios Defendants
`
`13
`
`identify. (Op. Brf. at 7.) TCL cites no basis for their third assertion but attack it as
`
`14
`
`“contradictory and confusing” with respect to the first two. (Id.) Indeed, the Amended
`
`15
`
`Complaint explains for the first method step, “a program running on one or more
`
`16
`
`OTA servers owned and/or controlled by TCL set up a verification structure in the
`
`17
`
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (Dkt. #24, ¶37) and “once TCL has set
`
`18
`
`up the verification structure by transmitting to a device an OTA update like those TCL
`
`19
`
`provided on or about December 16, 2016, April 25, 2017, and June 15, 2017, each
`
`20
`
`Accused Product is configured to automatically perform each of the remaining
`
`21
`
`Claim 1 steps.” (Id., ¶42). TCL’s third scenario, therefore, is at odds with the express
`
`22
`
`allegations in the Amended Complaint.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 39 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 28 Page ID #:308
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`2.
`
`The Amended Complaint places TCL “on notice” with
`
`respect to each claim limitation
`
`TCL asserts that the Amended Complaint fails to allege facts showing that the
`
`4
`
`Accused Products practice each limitation of claim 1. TCL is incorrect, and in some
`
`5
`
`cases, focus on unclaimed features which Ancora need not plead.
`
`6
`
`As TCL acknowledges, a plaintiff “need not prove its case at the pleading
`
`7
`
`stage,” the complaint need only “place the potential infringer on notice of what activity
`
`8
`
`is being accused of infringement.” (Op. Brf. at 8 quoting Nalco Co. v. Chem–Mod,
`
`9
`
`LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018).)
`
`10
`
`In Pres. Techs. LLC v. Mindgeek USA Inc., No. CV17-8906-DOC, 2019 U.S.
`
`11
`
`Dist. LEXIS 145072, at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019), this Court recently held:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`[Plaintiff] need not “prove its case at the pleading stage.” Nalco Co. v.
`
`Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations
`
`omitted). The Court must accept the factual allegations as true. The
`
`complaint must place the “potential infringer . . . on notice of what
`
`activity . . . is being accused of infringement.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`[Plaintiff's] pleading clearly exceeds the minimum requirements under
`
`Rule 12(b)(6), especially as “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
`
`require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing t