Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-22706-RNS
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`HMD AMERICA, INC., HMD GLOBAL OY,
`SHENZHEN CHINO-E COMMUNICATION
`CO. LTD., HON HAI PRECISION
`INDUSTRY CO., LTD, TINNO MOBILE
`TECHNOLOGY CORP., SHENZHEN TINNO
`MOBILE CO., LTD., TINNO USA, INC., UNISOC
`TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., SPREADTRUM
`COMMUNICATIONS USA, INC., WINGTECH
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., WINGTECH
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., HUAQIN CO. LTD.,
`BEST BUY CO., INC., BEST BUY STORES L.P.,
`TARGET CORP., WALMART INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT UNISOC TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.’S
`REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER UNISOC .......................... 1
`
`PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD ANY ACTIVITY BY UNISOC THAT
`COULD POSSIBLY DIRECTLY INFRINGE THE ASSERTED PATENTS .................. 3
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PLEAD INDIRECT AND WILLFUL
`INFRINGEMENT BY UNISOC ........................................................................................ 4
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Solano Cnty.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Atlantis Hydroponics, Inc. v. Int’l Growers Supply, Inc.,
`915 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2013) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Atmos Nation, LLC v. BnB Enter., LLC,
`No. 0:16-cv-62083-CIV, 2017 WL 5004844 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2017) .................................. 4
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`CTP Innovations, LLC v. Solo Printing, Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-21499, 2014 WL 11997838 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2014) ......................................... 4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`396 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (S.D. Fla. 2019) ............................................................................. 1, 2, 3
`
`SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC,
`580 U.S. 328 (2017) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................. 2
`
`Viavi Sols. Inc. v. Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00378, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205106 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022) ..................... 2
`
`Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,
`683 F. App’x 786 (11th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
`444 U.S. 286 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 .......................................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER UNISOC
`
`All that Plaintiff was able to amass for specific jurisdiction over Unisoc1 comes down to
`
`1) webpages listing several Unisoc chipsets; and 2) that some other company’s products found in
`
`the United States apparently contain Unisoc chipsets. ECF No. 127 at 3-7 (“Opp.”). Then, without
`
`any further support, Plaintiff states that “there is no doubt that Unisoc introduces infringing
`
`products into the stream of commerce within the United States.” Opp. at 3 (emphasis added). But
`
`personal jurisdiction requires more than pure conjecture. See, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.
`
`v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 298 (1980) (holding that exercise of specific jurisdiction requires
`
`showing that the defendant placed the accused products into the “stream of commerce with the
`
`expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State” where expectation
`
`requires more than mere “foreseeab[ility]”); In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., 396 F. Supp.
`
`3d 1101, 1155 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“[S]pecific jurisdiction under the stream of commerce theory will
`
`not be sustained upon unspecific and generalized allegations.”). Neither the Complaint nor
`
`Plaintiff’s opposition brief identifies the requisite contacts with the forum.
`
`The “substantial connection” with the forum “necessary for a finding of minimum contacts
`
`must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.”
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987)
`
`(citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985)). Plaintiff, however, fails to
`
`identify any Unisoc activity purposefully directed toward Florida or the United States. Instead,
`
`Plaintiff cites a Unisoc website that simply acknowledges its products are “sold on a global scale.”
`
`Opp. at 5. Nor is it significant that the Unisoc website links to the Nokia T20 as a product
`
`example—the Nokia T20 is sold globally.2 None of this shows Unisoc directing anything toward
`
`
`1 Plaintiff does not assert general personal jurisdiction over Unisoc.
`2 See, e.g., https://www.nokia.com/phones/en_int/nokia-t-20?sku=F20RID1A001 at n.3.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`Florida or the United States. Plaintiff’s only evidence of activity directed to Florida or the United
`
`States is that of other companies. Plaintiff thus fails to “allege the necessary ‘something more’ to
`
`invoke this Court’s jurisdiction” under stream of commerce. Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1154.
`
`Plaintiff also errs by dismissing this Court and Supreme Court cases because they are “non-
`
`patent cases”3 (Opp. 9-12), and instead relies on the Viavi case from the Eastern District of Texas
`
`while omitting key details (Opp. 6). In reaching its decision in Viavi, the Texas court noted that
`
`“the record reflects that [Defendant] Crystal . . . knew (or should have reasonably known) the likely
`
`destination of the products.” Viavi Sols. Inc. v. Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-
`
`00378, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205106, *14-15 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022) (emphasis added). Here,
`
`there is no record showing such knowledge or any purposeful availment of Florida or the United
`
`States. Instead, this case is more like Takata because Plaintiff does not allege Unisoc designed its
`
`products “in or specifically for the” U.S.; “directed any advertising campaign”; “established any
`
`channels for advising customers in the” U.S.; “created the distribution network in the” U.S.;
`
`“provided any financial support to” a U.S. distributor; or “otherwise controlled” companies
`
`performing such activities. 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1154. In fact, this case is even stronger because,
`
`unlike in Takata, Unisoc does not have any parent-subsidiary relationship with companies that sell
`
`the accused products in the United States. See id.; cf. Zhen Decl. (ECF No. 91-1), ¶¶ 5-12.
`
`Plaintiff raises Rule 4(k)(2) in its Opposition despite not alleging it in the Complaint.
`
`Regardless, Plaintiff fails to identify any different evidence or argument under Rule 4(k)(2). Opp.
`
`
`3 “[P]atent law is governed by the same . . . procedural rules as other areas of civil litigation.”
`SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328, 340 (2017).
`There are no “special” patent rules for personal jurisdiction. Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`997 F.3d 1147, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“personal jurisdiction cannot rest on special patent
`policies”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`7 (relying on its non-Rule 4(k)(2) argument). As explained above, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient
`
`contacts with Florida or the United States (under Rule 4(k)(2)) to exercise jurisdiction.
`
`Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery should be denied. Jurisdictional discovery is
`
`“to ascertain the truth of the allegations or facts underlying the assertion of personal jurisdiction.”
`
`Atlantis Hydroponics, Inc. v. Int’l Growers Supply, Inc., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1380 (N.D. Ga.
`
`2013). Plaintiff, however, has not alleged any facts supporting the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
`
`Its request for jurisdictional discovery is nothing more than an improper “fishing expedition” that
`
`courts routinely reject. See id. (collecting cases); see also Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1157 (denying
`
`jurisdictional discovery where Plaintiff fails to “specify what information [Plaintiffs have] sought
`
`or how that information would bolster [their] allegations”) (quoting Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,
`
`683 F. App’x 786, 792 (11th Cir. 2017)). The Court should do the same here.
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD ANY ACTIVITY BY UNISOC THAT COULD
`POSSIBLY DIRECTLY INFRINGE THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Plaintiff does not meaningfully contest that it fails to adequately plead direct infringement
`
`by Unisoc. Instead, Plaintiff misstates the law, makes conclusory allegations, and ignores issues
`
`with its Complaint raised in Unisoc’s opening brief. Compare ECF No. 91 at 9-10 (“Mot.”), with
`
`Opp. at 7-8. As an initial matter, Plaintiff wrongly states the standard for when a motion to dismiss
`
`may be granted. Opp. 7. The Twombly/Iqbal standard applies to patent cases. Cf. supra Note 3.
`
`Plaintiff alleges only that Nokia branded mobile phones and tablets infringe the asserted
`
`patents, and alleges only that “these phones contain Unisoc platforms.” See Opp. at 3. But Unisoc
`
`does not make, sell, or import these mobile devices and Plaintiff does not allege otherwise.
`
`Compare Mot. at 9-10 (noting this), with Opp. at 7-8 (not rebutting it). Instead, Plaintiff appears
`
`to focus on whether it adequately pled that these mobile devices meet the claim elements. Opp. at
`
`8. But that is the wrong issue because the problem is that Plaintiff fails to give Unisoc “fair notice”
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`of what its claim is against Unisoc and how Unisoc allegedly directly infringes. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). None of the paragraphs Plaintiff cites (¶¶ 114-129) allege any
`
`Unisoc activity that could possibly directly infringe any of the asserted patents. Opp. at 8. Plaintiff
`
`cannot hide behind its allegations against different defendants. The Court should dismiss its claims.
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PLEAD INDIRECT AND WILLFUL
`INFRINGEMENT BY UNISOC
`
`Plaintiff merely concludes in its opposition that it “amply demonstrated . . . indirect and
`
`willful patent infringement.” Opp. at 8. But this fails to address the issues raised in Unisoc’s
`
`opening brief. Compare Mot. at 10-11, with Opp. at 8. Nor does Plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish
`
`Iqbal and Commil. Opp. at 12. Commil sets forth the elements for an indirect infringement claim
`
`and those same elements apply at the pleading stage. And Plaintiff cannot ignore Supreme Court
`
`precedent simply because Iqbal “did not involve a patent claim.” See supra Note 3.
`
`Plaintiff’s attempts to distinguish cases for willful infringement similarly fails. Halo sets
`
`forth the elements of a willful infringement claim and, like indirect infringement, those same
`
`elements apply at the pleading stage. Plaintiff states that Atmos and CTP Innovations “are not
`
`persuasive because” its willful infringement allegations here “pre-date the filing of the complaint.”
`
`Opp. at 13. Plaintiff, however, fails to cite any such allegation in its Complaint. See id. Rather, the
`
`Complaint does not allege any knowledge that “pre-date[s] the filing of the complaint.” See ECF
`
`No. 1.
`
`The Court should dismiss the indirect and willful infringement claims against Unisoc.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, the Court should dismiss this case as to Unisoc under Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(2) or 12 (b)(6).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__/s/ Terri Ellen Tuchman Meyers
`Terri Ellen Tuchman Meyers
`Fla. Bar No. 881279
`tmeyers@klugerkaplan.com
`Marissa Reichel
`mreichel@klugerkaplan.com
`Fla. Bar No. 1016190
`KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN &
`LEVINE, P.L.
`201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, 27th Floor
`Miami, FL 33131
`Tel: (305) 379-9000
`
`Qingyu Yin (admitted pro hac vice)
`qingyu.yin@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
`& DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: (202) 408-4000
`
`Benjamin R. Schlesinger (admitted pro hac vice)
`Benjamin.schlesinger@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
`& DUNNER, LLP
`271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
`Tel: (404) 653-6416
`
`Jacob A. Schroeder (admitted pro hac vice)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
`& DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 849-6600
`
`Yi Yu (admitted pro hac vice)
`yi.yu@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
`& DUNNER, LLP
`1875 Explorer St., Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190
`Tel: (571) 203-2700
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Unisoc (Shanghai) Technologies
`Co., Ltd.
`
`6
`
`