Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 1 of 18
`
`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
`CORP., SHENZHEN TINNO MOBILE CO., LTD.,
`UNISOC TECHNOLOGIES CO.
`LTD., SPREADTRUM COMMUNICATIONS USA,
`INC., WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD., WINTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`HUAQIN CO. LTD., BEST BUY CO., INC., BEST
`BUY STORES L.P., TARGET CORP., WALMART
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS UNISOC TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.’S AND
`SPREADTRUM COMMUNICATIONS USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Unisoc lacks contacts with Florida and the United States ...................................... 1
`
`Spreadtrum lacks contacts with Florida .................................................................. 2
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations .............................................................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER UNISOC AND
`SPREADTRUM .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Court lacks general jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum ........................ 5
`
`The Court lacks specific jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum ....................... 6
`
`The Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum would
`violate due process. ................................................................................................. 7
`
`IV.
`
`THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO PLAUSIBLY ALLEGE INFRINGEMENT BY
`UNISOC AND SPREADTRUM ........................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Plausible Facts for Its Direct Infringement Claims .......... 9
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Facts Required to Plead Indirect Infringement .............. 10
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Facts Required to Plead Willful Infringement ............... 11
`
`THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER VENUE AS TO
`SPREADTRUM ................................................................................................................ 11
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 3 of 18
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 8
`
`Alpha Tech. U.S.A. Corp. v. MLSNA Dairy Supply, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-01062, 2013 WL 6195766 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2013) ......................................... 6
`
`Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) .............................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................................ 5, 7, 10
`
`Atmos Nation, LLC v. BnB Enter., LLC,
`No. 0:16-cv-62083-CIV, 2017 WL 5004844 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2017) ................................ 11
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 9, 10
`
`Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................ 4, 5
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Conformis, Inc. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 1:19-cv-01528, 2022 WL 1909386 (D. Del. June 3, 2022) ............................................... 9
`
`CTP Innovations, LLC v. Solo Printing, Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-21499, 2014 WL 11997838 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2014) ....................................... 11
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ............................................................................................................ 9, 10
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 4 of 18
`
`In re Cray Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`396 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (S.D. Fla. 2019) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 9:20-md-02924, 2020 WL 6907056 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2020) ......................................... 4
`
`In re ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................... 12
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer,
`556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
`444 U.S. 286 (1980) .............................................................................................................. 6, 8
`
`Zanakis v. Scanreco, Inc.,
`No. 1:18-cv-21813-UU, 2019 WL 2211872 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2019) ...................................... 7
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400 ..................................................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ..................................................................................................................... 8, 9, 10
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193 ....................................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .................................................................................................................... 11, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 5 of 18
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Unisoc (Shanghai) Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Unisoc”) is a Chinese semiconductor
`
`company. 1 Spreadtrum Communications USA Inc. (“Spreadtrum”), a subsidiary of Unisoc, is
`
`incorporated in Delaware and has an office in California. Neither Unisoc nor Spreadtrum make,
`
`sell, or import any products in the United States. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, e.g., that
`
`Unisoc and Spreadtrum have “a regular and established place of business within this District”
`
`(ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 26, 27), are both unfounded and contradicted by affidavit evidence submitted
`
`herewith. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum and should dismiss
`
`the Complaint against them. Further, because Spreadtrum does not reside or have a regular and
`
`established place of business in this District, the Court should dismiss the Complaint as to
`
`Spreadtrum for improper venue.
`
`The Court should also dismiss the Complaint as to Unisoc and Spreadtrum for failure to
`
`state a claim. Plaintiff groups all defendants together and broadly alleges that mobile phones and
`
`tablets infringe thirteen patents but fails to identify any Unisoc or Spreadtrum product, service, or
`
`activity. Plaintiff fails to provide notice of its allegations of direct, indirect, and willful
`
`infringement against Unisoc and Spreadtrum. For this reason, such claims should be dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Unisoc lacks contacts with Florida and the United States
`
`Unisoc is a Chinese semiconductor company organized under the laws of the People’s
`
`Republic of China and has its principal place of business in Shanghai, China. See Declaration of
`
`Zhen Zhang, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Zhang Decl.), ¶¶ 3-4. Unisoc does not develop, design,
`
`manufacture, advertise, market, sell, import, or distribute products in the United States. Zhang
`
`
`1 The Complaint incorrectly identifies Unisoc as “Unisoc Technologies Co. Ltd.”
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 6 of 18
`
`Decl. ¶ 5. Unisoc does not provide any post-sales service or support in the United States. Zhang
`
`Decl. ¶ 6. Unisoc is not registered to conduct business in Florida or any other state in the United
`
`States. Zhang Decl. ¶ 8. Unisoc has no employees in the United States. Zhang Decl. ¶ 8. Unisoc
`
`does not own or lease any real or personal property in the United States. Zhang Decl. ¶ 9. Unisoc
`
`does not maintain a bank account in the United States and does not pay taxes in the United States.
`
`Zhang Decl. ¶ 10.
`
`Customers may incorporate Unisoc’s chipsets in downstream products (e.g., mobile phones
`
`and tablets) and sell such downstream products in China or elsewhere in the world. Zhang Decl.
`
`¶ 11. Unisoc has no control over the incorporation of its chipsets into any downstream products
`
`and has no control over the distribution or sale of the downstream products. Zhang Decl. ¶ 11. The
`
`manufacturers of downstream products have no obligations to inform Unisoc of the sales of
`
`downstream products. Zhang Decl. ¶ 11.
`
`B.
`
`Spreadtrum lacks contacts with Florida
`
`Spreadtrum is a separate business entity from Unisoc. See Declaration of Yalei Mao,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 2 (Mao Decl.), ¶ 3. Spreadtrum is incorporated in Delaware and has an
`
`office in California. Mao Decl. ¶ 4. It does not have any office or place of business in Florida. Mao
`
`Decl. ¶ 7. Spreadtrum is a company directed to researching and developing semiconductor parts,
`
`primarily radio frequency transceivers. Mao Decl. ¶ 5. It does not manufacture, sell, or distribute
`
`any products or services. Mao Decl. ¶ 5. Spreadtrum does not develop, design, manufacture,
`
`advertise, market, sell, import, or distribute products in Florida. Mao Decl. ¶ 6. Spreadtrum has no
`
`employees in Florida. Mao Decl. ¶ 7. Spreadtrum does not own or lease any real or personal
`
`property in Florida. Mao Decl. ¶ 8. Spreadtrum does not maintain a bank account in Florida and
`
`does not pay taxes in Florida. Mao Decl. ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 7 of 18
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations
`
`Plaintiff alleges thirteen counts of patent infringement by the “Accused Instrumentalities,”
`
`defined as Nokia mobile phones and tablets. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 113-388. Plaintiff’s allegations
`
`comprise only conclusory statements such as “each Defendant has and continues to directly [or
`
`indirectly] infringe one or more claims of” each patent by selling, offering to sell, making, using
`
`and/or providing and causing to be used the Accused Instrumentalities. Id. at ¶¶ 117, 140, 162,
`
`184, 208, 228, 248, 267, 289, 310, 327, 345, 368. The Complaint lacks any factual statement as to
`
`what activities Unisoc or Spreadtrum performs that allegedly infringe the asserted patents.
`
`For each defendant, Plaintiff alleges that it “sells and offers to sell products and services
`
`throughout the United States, including in this judicial district, and introduces products and
`
`services into the stream of commerce that incorporate infringing technology, knowing that they
`
`would be sold in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.” Id. at ¶¶ 3-18. Plaintiff
`
`again fails to identify any specific Unisoc or Spreadtrum “products and services” allegedly sold in
`
`this district or anywhere else.
`
`Plaintiff also alleges that each defendant “has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District and has a regular and established place of business within this District.” Id. at ¶¶ 22-34.
`
`Plaintiff does not identify any alleged “regular and established place of business within this
`
`District” for Unisoc or Spreadtrum. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 27. Nor does Plaintiff allege any facts supporting
`
`its conclusion that each of Unisoc and Spreadtrum “has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District.” Id. Plaintiff then concludes:
`
`Upon information and belief, each Defendant is subject to this Court’s general and
`specific personal jurisdiction, because each Defendant has sufficient minimum
`contacts within the State of Florida and this District, pursuant to due process and/or
`the Florida Long Arm Statute, because each Defendant purposefully availed itself
`of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Florida and in this District,
`because each Defendant regularly conducts and solicits business within the State of
`Florida and within this District, and because Plaintiff’s causes of action arise
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 8 of 18
`
`directly from each of Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State
`of Florida and this District.
`
`Id. at ¶ 35. Plaintiff does not plead any facts supporting its conclusion that Unisoc and Spreadtrum
`
`“purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Florida and in
`
`this District.” Id. Plaintiff also does not plead any facts supporting its conclusion that each of
`
`Unisoc and Spreadtrum “regularly conducts and solicits business within the State of Florida and
`
`within this District.” Id. Nor does Plaintiff plead what alleged Unisoc or Spreadtrum “business
`
`contacts and other activities in the State of Florida and this District” allegedly give rise to its cause
`
`of action. Id.
`
`III. THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER UNISOC AND
`SPREADTRUM
`
`Plaintiff fails to allege “sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction” for
`
`Unisoc and Spreadtrum. United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009).
`
`Plaintiff does not allege any fact to establish Unisoc’s or Spreadtrum’s contact with Florida. ECF
`
`No. 1 at ¶¶ 22-35; see also Section II.C. Instead, Plaintiff states for each defendant that Defendant
`
`“has committed acts of infringement in this District and has a regular and established place of
`
`business within this District.” Id. at ¶¶ 22-34. Plaintiff then concludes that “each Defendant has
`
`sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Florida and this District.” Id. at ¶ 35. Such generic
`
`allegations do not establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction because they “do not plead
`
`facts with any specificity” and “are not tailored to any of the [] Defendants named in the []
`
`Complaint, much less to any Foreign2 Defendant.” In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`
`No. 9:20-md-02924, 2020 WL 6907056, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2020); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`
`2 For personal jurisdiction, foreign defendants include both “sister-state” and “foreign-country”
`defendants. Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201, 1204 (11th Cir. 2015)
`(quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)).
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 9 of 18
`
`556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009) (“[T]he allegations are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.”).
`
`The Court could dismiss on this basis alone.
`
`As reflected in the accompanying affidavits, Unisoc and Spreadtrum do not have the
`
`necessary contacts with Florida sufficient for either general or specific personal jurisdiction. And
`
`the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum would violate due process.
`
`A.
`
`The Court lacks general jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum
`
`General jurisdiction fails because Unisoc and Spreadtrum do not partake in any substantial
`
`activities in this state. A Florida Court may only properly exercise general jurisdiction over a
`
`defendant who is “engaged in substantial and not isolated activity” within Florida. Fla. Stat.
`
`§ 48.193(2). Foreign corporations like Unisoc and Spreadtrum cannot be subject to general
`
`jurisdiction in a forum “unless the corporation’s activities in the forum closely approximate the
`
`activities that ordinarily characterize a corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of
`
`business.” Carmouche, 789 F.3d at 1205. Unisoc and Spreadtrum are not registered to do business
`
`in Florida, and have no offices, real property, employees, or bank accounts in Florida. Zhang Decl.
`
`¶¶ 8-10; Mao Decl. ¶¶ 7-9; see also Sections II.A and II.B. Unisoc and Spreadtrum have taken no
`
`steps to direct activities towards Florida. Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Mao Decl. ¶¶ 6-9. Rather, Unisoc
`
`is incorporated in China and has its principal place of business in China. Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.
`
`Spreadtrum is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal of business in California. Mao Decl.
`
`¶ 4. Unisoc and Spreadtrum do not engage in any activity in Florida. Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Mao
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 6-9. Plaintiff does not identify any business of Unisoc or Spreadtrum in Florida.
`
`General jurisdiction over a foreign defendant can be found only in an “exceptional case,”
`
`requiring a showing of the defendant’s substantial, continuous, and systematic contact with the
`
`forum. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 138-39, n.19 (2014). Neither Unisoc nor Spreadtrum
`
`is such an exceptional case.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 10 of 18
`
`B.
`
`The Court lacks specific jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum
`
`This Court also lacks specific jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum under Florida’s
`
`long-arm statute because Unisoc and Spreadtrum do not engage in any business activity in Florida.
`
`A Florida Court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant that “operat[es], conduct[s],
`
`engag[es] in, or carr[ies] on a business or business venture” in Florida. Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1).
`
`The Complaint is devoid of any factual allegation that Unisoc or Spreadtrum has any contact giving
`
`rise to Plaintiff’s patent infringement claims. As noted above, Unisoc and Spreadtrum are not
`
`involved in any business activities in Florida (see, e.g., Sections II.A and III.B), and as a result,
`
`the claims in the Complaint directed toward Unisoc and Spreadtrum cannot “arise[] from” or be
`
`“directly related to” any contact with Florida. See Alpha Tech. U.S.A. Corp. v. MLSNA Dairy
`
`Supply, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-01062, 2013 WL 6195766, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2013) (“Courts
`
`may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the plaintiff’s cause of
`
`action arises from or is directly related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.”).
`
`Plaintiff’s stream of commerce argument is unavailing. See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 10, 11. The
`
`stream of commerce argument does not apply to Spreadtrum because Spreadtrum does not place
`
`any products in the stream of commerce. Spreadtrum is a research company and does not
`
`manufacture, sell, or distribute any products. Mao Decl. ¶ 5. The Court has no personal jurisdiction
`
`over Unisoc because Unisoc does not “deliver[] products into the stream of commerce with the
`
`expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.” World-Wide Volkswagen
`
`Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98 (1980) (finding the mere “foreseeability” that the
`
`products may end up in the forum insufficient). Unisoc does not specifically design its chipsets to
`
`meet the requirements of the U.S. market. Zhang Decl. ¶ 12. Unisoc has no distributor in the U.S.
`
`or Florida for its products and has established no distribution channel in the U.S. or Florida. Zhang
`
`Decl. ¶ 7. Indeed, Plaintiff pleads no facts suggesting that Unisoc marketed its chipsets, or any
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 11 of 18
`
`final products containing Unisoc’s chipsets in Florida, or any other facts that could support a
`
`stream of commerce theory. See In re Takata Airbag Prods. 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.”) (collecting cases). Moreover, this Court
`
`has applied the more stringent “stream of commerce plus” test that requires an action of the
`
`defendant “purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Zanakis v. Scanreco, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-
`
`21813-UU, 2019 WL 2211872, at *7-9 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2019) (quoting Asahi Metal Industry Co.
`
`v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987)). Under the “stream of commerce plus” test,
`
`“‘awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State’ is
`
`not enough to establish personal jurisdiction.” Id. at *7 (quoting Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112). Plaintiff
`
`does not allege any activity of Unisoc or Spreadtrum “purposefully directed toward” Florida.
`
`C.
`
`The Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum would
`violate due process.
`
`It would be unconstitutional and inconsistent with due process for this Court to exercise
`
`jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum because Unisoc and Spreadtrum do not have sufficient
`
`“minimum contacts” with the state of Florida. Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash, 326 U.S. 310, 316
`
`(1945). The Complaint alleges, without factual support, that “each Defendant has sufficient
`
`minimum contacts within the State of Florida and this District.” ECF No. 1 at ¶ 35. Plaintiff’s
`
`allegations are not supported by facts but rather are “conclusory and not entitled to be assumed
`
`true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681.
`
`Unisoc and Spreadtrum lack any contacts with Florida. Spreadtrum and Unisoc have never
`
`been engaged in trade and commerce in Florida. Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Mao Decl. ¶¶ 6-9; see also
`
`Sections II.A and II.B. Spreadtrum has its office in California and does not manufacture or sell
`
`any products anywhere in the United States. Mao Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Unisoc does not engage in
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 12 of 18
`
`manufacture in Florida or sales purposefully directed towards Florida. Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 5-7; see
`
`Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112 (holding that the mere placement of a product in the stream of commerce,
`
`without more, was not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state;
`
`additional conduct such as advertising or marketing product in the forum state was necessary for
`
`finding of minimum contacts); AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (dismissing patent infringement claims on personal jurisdiction grounds where plaintiff
`
`failed to identify substantial infringing activity in the forum). Unisoc and Spreadtrum lack any
`
`contacts with Florida, and Plaintiff cannot meet its burden of proving purposeful availment and
`
`relatedness.
`
`Because of the lack of contact with this state, Unisoc and Spreadtrum could not have
`
`“reasonably anticipate[d] being hailed into court” in Florida. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S.
`
`at 297. Forcing Unisoc and Spreadtrum to litigate in this forum where they have no contacts would
`
`violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and unconstitutionally deprive Unisoc
`
`and Spreadtrum of due process.
`
`IV.
`
`THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO PLAUSIBLY ALLEGE INFRINGEMENT BY
`UNISOC AND SPREADTRUM
`
`As stated above, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint against Unisoc and
`
`Spreadtrum for lack of jurisdiction. If the Court nonetheless concludes jurisdiction is appropriate,
`
`the Complaint still should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Unisoc and
`
`Spreadtrum for direct, indirect, or willful infringement. A direct infringement claim requires
`
`particular actions to occur in or into the United States. See 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). But Plaintiff fails
`
`to provide a single factual allegation that Unisoc or Spreadtrum engages in activity in or into the
`
`United States that would, if true, give rise to direct infringement. Nor does Plaintiff identify any
`
`Unisoc or Spreadtrum product that allegedly infringes. Plaintiff’s claims for indirect infringement
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 13 of 18
`
`and willful infringement are also deficient for failing to allege any facts showing specific intent to
`
`infringe and knowledge of infringement required by the law. See Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v.
`
`SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011).
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Plausible Facts for Its Direct Infringement Claims
`
`The Complaint fails to allege any specific Unisoc or Spreadtrum activity in the United
`
`States to plead direct infringement. Unisoc is a Chinese corporation. It does not make, use, offer
`
`to sell, or sell any products “within the United States,” or import any products “into the United
`
`States” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Spreadtrum does not make, offer to sell, sell, or import
`
`any products in the United States or anywhere else in the world. Plaintiff alleges generically that
`
`each defendant infringes the asserted patents “by making, using, offering for sale, selling, offering
`
`for lease, leasing in the United States, and/or importing into the United States without authority or
`
`license, the Accused Instrumentalities.” ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 124, 145, 171, 192, 215, 232, 251, 273,
`
`294, 315, 333, 352, 377. These bare, conclusory allegations are no more than a “formulaic
`
`recitation of the elements of a cause of action” and are insufficient as a matter of law. Bell Atl.
`
`Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Nowhere does Plaintiff specifically allege infringing
`
`activity by Unisoc or Spreadtrum taking place in the United States, as required by § 271(a) for
`
`direct infringement. See also Conformis, Inc. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01528,
`
`2022 WL 1909386, at *4 (D. Del. June 3, 2022) (dismissing direct infringement claim because the
`
`Complaint does not “specifically allege any infringing activity by [defendant] taking place in the
`
`United States”).
`
`The Complaint also fails to identify any Unisoc or Spreadtrum product that allegedly
`
`infringes the asserted patents. Plaintiff identifies Nokia branded mobile phones and tablets as
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities.” ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 113-388. But Unisoc and Spreadtrum do not make,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 14 of 18
`
`sell, or import such “Accused Instrumentalities.” The Complaint thus fails to give “fair notice” of
`
`any claim against Unisoc or Spreadtrum. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
`
`Dismissal of the Complaint’s direct infringement allegations against Unisoc and
`
`Spreadtrum is appropriate.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Facts Required to Plead Indirect Infringement
`
`Infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) require a showing that the defendant had
`
`“knowledge of patent infringement” and had specific intent to cause infringement. Commil USA,
`
`LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639, 642 (2015) (citing Global-Tech, 563 U.S. at 766). The
`
`Complaint has shown neither. Plaintiff has not pled any facts to demonstrate Unisoc’s or
`
`Spreadtrum’s knowledge of the asserted patents or infringement thereof. As explained Section
`
`IV.A, the Complaint does not identify any specific Unisoc or Spreadtrum product that allegedly
`
`infringes the asserted patents, directly or indirectly, much less that Unisoc or Spreadtrum
`
`knowingly caused patent infringement in connection with any unidentified product.
`
`In addition, the Complaint declares, without any factual support, that “each Defendant’s
`
`actions that aid and abet others such as its partners, customers, clients, and end users to infringe
`
`include advertising and distributing the Accused Instrumentalities and providing instruction
`
`materials, training, and services regarding the Accused Instrumentalities.” ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 131,
`
`153, 176, 199, 220, 239, 258, 280, 301, 319, 337, 360, 384. This conclusory statement is
`
`insufficient to establish induced infringement. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681 (“[T]he allegations are
`
`conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.”). Indeed, Unisoc and Spreadtrum do not design
`
`or sell the Accused Instrumentalities, so it is nonsensical to allege that Unisoc and Spreadtrum
`
`advertise, distribute, or provide instruction materials for “the Accused Instrumentalities.”
`
`Plaintiff’s claims fail because the Complaint does not contain factual allegations that create
`
`a “reasonable inference” of specific intent to cause patent infringement. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 15 of 18
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Facts Required to Plead Willful Infringement
`
`The Complaint has “pled no facts to suggest that Defendant had knowledge, let alone the
`
`circumstances indicating egregious behavior” necessary to plead an allegation of willful
`
`infringement. See Atmos Nation, LLC v. BnB Enter., LLC, No. 0:16-cv-62083-CIV, 2017 WL
`
`5004844, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2017). Rather, the Complaint simply concludes, without any
`
`factual support, that each Defendant’s infringement “is willful and deliberate.” ECF No. 1 at
`
`¶¶ 133, 155, 178, 201, 241, 260, 282, 303, 361, 385; see also id. at ¶¶ 222, 321, 339 (alleging
`
`infringement “is exceptional”). As explained Section IV.A, the Complaint does not identify any
`
`specific Unisoc or Spreadtrum product that allegedly infringes the asserted patents, much less that
`
`Unisoc and Spreadtrum have acted with the “sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages” (i.e.,
`
`conduct that is “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant,
`
`or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate”). See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93,
`
`103-04 (2016). Nor does the Complaint allege any facts supporting that Unisoc and Spreadtrum
`
`had any pre-suit knowledge of the patents. CTP Innovations, LLC v. Solo Printing, Inc., No. 1:14-
`
`cv-21499, 2014 WL 11997838, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2014) (dismissing willfulness allegation
`
`for lack of pre-suit knowledge). Plaintiff’s “willfulness allegations are nearly non-existent and do
`
`not satisfy the standards of pleading,” and thus, should be dismissed. See Atmos, 2017 WL
`
`5004844, at *2.
`
`V.
`
`THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER VENUE AS TO
`SPREADTRUM
`
`The Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(3) as to Spreadtrum because venue
`
`is improper in the Southern District of Florida. Venue is proper when a suit is brought “in the
`
`judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of
`
`infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). These
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 16 of 18
`
`requirements derive from “the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue” in any action for
`
`patent infringement. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1519
`
`(2017