Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 26
`
`BROADSIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-04586 (LTS-HBP)
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`:
`
`
`:
`
`T-REX PROPERTY AB,
`:
`
`
`:
`
`
`:
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`:
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
`TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (AF8255)
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Lawrence C. Drucker (LD9423)
`Email: ldrucker@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, New York 10036
`Telephone: (212) 209-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 209-4801
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`BROADSIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`T-Rex’s Prior Actions ..........................................................................................3
`
`BroadSign’s Allegations of Invalidity ..................................................................4
`
`BroadSign’s Allegations of Non-Infringement .....................................................5
`
`BroadSign’s Allegations of Intervening Rights .....................................................8
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................9
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Invalidity Has Been Sufficiently Alleged ........................................................... 10
`
`Non-infringement Has Been Sufficiently Alleged............................................... 15
`
`Equitable Intervening Rights Has Been Sufficiently Alleged .............................. 18
`
`If the Court Determines That the SAC is Not Sufficiently Detailed,
`BroadSign Should Be Granted Leave to Amend ................................................. 19
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc.,
`988 F.2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................................ 16, 17, 21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................. 7, 16, 18
`
`Aster Graphics, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`No. CV 17-1167-DOC (JDEx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12 2018) ..................................................... 24
`
`BIC Leisure Products, Inc. v. Windsurfing Inter., Inc.,
`1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`Cardigan Mountain School v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.,
`787 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Chou v. University of Chicago,
`254 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. OpenTV, Inc.,
`319 F.R.D. 269 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ......................................................................................... 24
`
`Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC,
`112 F. Supp. 3d 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .................................................................................... 19
`
`CryoLife, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`No. CV 14-559-SLR, 2015 WL 1069397 (D. Del. Mar. 10, 2015) ....................................... 18
`
`Disc Disease Sols Inc. v. VGH Sols, Inc.,
`888 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`Elan Pharma Int’l Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`No. 09-1008 (JAG), 2010 WL 1372316 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2010) .......................................... 19
`
`Gradient Enterprises, Inc. v. Skype Techs. S.A.,
`932 F. Supp. 2d 447 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) ................................................................................ 18
`
`Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc. v. C.W. Zumbiel Co.,
`No. 1:10-cv-3008-AT, 2011 WL 5829674 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2011) .................................... 18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 4 of 26
`
`Halebian v. Berv,
`644 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. J.C Penney Corp.,
`No. 11 CV 9143, 2012 WL 3776892 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2012) ............................................ 18
`
`Holotouch, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 17 CIV. 8717 (AKH), 2018 WL 2290701 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2018) ............................. 18
`
`Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co. v. WiLAN, Inc.,
`12-cv-7900-SAS, 2013 WL 2322675 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2013) .......................................... 26
`
`L.M. Sessler Excavating & Wrecking, Inc. v. Bette & Cring, LLC,
`No. 16-CV-06534-FPG, 2017 WL 4652709 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2017) ............................... 18
`
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2011), opinion vacated on other grounds, 672 F.3d
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................................... 25
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`726 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ................................................................................... 18
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-2061-H (BGS), 2016 WL 7319533 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016) ............................ 25
`
`Summers Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Tri-Cty.,
`300 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Iowa 2017) ......................................................................... 19, 24
`
`T-Rex Property AB v. Health Media Network, LLC,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-05673 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016) ..................................................... 9, 10, 20
`
`Teirstein v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`No. 6:08cv14, 2009 WL 704138 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2009) ................................................ 19
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Wireless Ink Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`787 F. Supp. 2d 298 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ............................................................................ 19, 20
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................... 8, 17, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 .................................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 5 of 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 252 ............................................................................................................. 14, 15, 25
`
`Other Authorities
`
`5A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1327 (3d ed.) ............................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................................... 7, 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) .................................................................................................................. 26
`
`Rule 8 ................................................................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`Rule 12 ..................................................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff BroadSign International, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “BroadSign”) submits this
`
`memorandum of law in opposition to the motion by Defendant T-Rex Property AB (“Defendant”
`
`or “T-Rex”) to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 55) (hereinafter, the “SAC”),
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). D.I. 59-61. Because BroadSign’s SAC sets forth
`
`sufficiently detailed, plausible allegations that BroadSign does not infringe three of T-Rex’s
`
`patents and that those patents are, in any event, invalid. Defendant’s motion should be denied
`
`and a case management order should be entered.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. RE39, 470 (the “’470 patent”); 7,382,334 (the “’334 patent”); and 6,430,603 (the
`
`“’603 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) and intervening rights with respect to the ’470
`
`patent. This motion—T-Rex’s second motion to dismiss––represents T-Rex’s latest attempt to
`
`delay the progress of this action which has been pending for more than two years. T-Rex’s first
`
`motion focused solely on the question of whether BroadSign had standing to seek a declaratory
`
`judgment. T-Rex could have challenged the sufficiency of BroadSign’s claims of
`
`non-infringement and intervening rights1 at that time but chose not to do so. After this Court
`
`granted BroadSign leave to file the SAC (D.I. 54), T-Rex made this motion rather than file an
`
`answer and move forward with discovery.
`
`
`
`In making this motion, T-Rex attempts to impose on BroadSign a requirement that the
`
`SAC contain a level of detail far in excess of that required under Twombly and Iqbal. To accept
`
`T-Rex’s logic would be tantamount to requiring BroadSign, or any declaratory judgment
`
`plaintiff, to have fully formed non-infringement and invalidity contentions, as well as proposed
`
`1 BroadSign’s initial Complaint (D.I. 1) and Amended Complaint (D.I. 10) sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the Patents-in-
`Suit and of intervening rights as to the ’470 patent. The SAC added claims seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity as to the Patents-in-
`Suit.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`claim constructions, at the time a suit is commenced. That is simply not the law. BroadSign’s
`
`SAC easily satisfies the Twombly/Iqbal standard of pleading that its claims for relief are
`
`plausible if true.
`
`
`
`With respect to BroadSign’s allegations that the Patents-in-Suit should be declared
`
`invalid, BroadSign provides representative claims for each of the three patents and lists the
`
`specific pieces of prior art and the combinations thereof that render those claims invalid as
`
`anticipated and/or obvious. BroadSign also lists the specific claims that it asserts contain
`
`abstract ideas which constitute unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and alleges
`
`examples of claims that are indefinite means plus function claims that should be invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112. More at this stage is not required. With respect to non-infringement, BroadSign’s
`
`allegations are also more than sufficient. BroadSign describes in detail representative claims that
`
`T-Rex itself has accused BroadSign’s products of infringing in other cases filed by T-Rex against
`
`BroadSign’s customers. BroadSign identifies the products and the specific limitations T-Rex has
`
`alleged are met by BroadSign’s Digital Waiting Room Screen and similar products. BroadSign
`
`not only describes those allegations but attached copies of the complaints in those other actions
`
`as exhibits to the SAC. See, D.I. 55-4, 5. BroadSign has also pled its claim for a declaration of
`
`intervening rights as to the ’470 patent. As to that claim, the facts are uncomplicated and are set
`
`forth in a level of detail sufficient for the claim to be plausible on its face. For these reasons,
`
`T-Rex’s motion should be denied and the case should be permitted to proceed to its initial
`
`scheduling conference now scheduled for September 24, 2018.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`As the Court is already aware, T-Rex is a prolific non-practicing entity that has filed at
`
`least 59 patent infringement cases against more than 80 companies in 17 judicial districts
`
`throughout the United States involving one or more of the Patents-in-Suit. BroadSign
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`commenced this action because T-Rex sued several of BroadSign’s customers accusing the
`
`products BroadSign sold to them of infringing the Patents-in-Suit and because communications
`
`between BroadSign and T-Rex made it apparent that T-Rex intends to continue to target
`
`BroadSign customers alleging that BroadSign’s products infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`A.
`
`T-Rex’s Prior Actions
`
`
`
`Three of T-Rex’s prior suits are particularly relevant to this action and to the disposition
`
`of this motion. The SAC sets forth in detail the allegations T-Rex made against BroadSign’s
`
`customers in lawsuits in which T-Rex accused the same BroadSign products at issue in this case
`
`of infringing the same three Patents-in-Suit. BroadSign’s SAC describes in detail T-Rex’s
`
`allegations in T-Rex Property AB v. Health Media Network, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05673 (N.D.
`
`Ill. May 27, 2016) (the “Health Media Network action”) in which T-Rex accuses the “digital
`
`health media advertising network” product of infringing the three Patents-in-Suit. D.I. 55 at ¶¶
`
`29-31, 45. The SAC specifically pleads that this product “is the product that BroadSign sold and
`
`delivered to HMN” and that “HMN has no other platform provider for its ‘digital health media
`
`network.’” D.I. 55 at ¶¶ 29-31.
`
`
`
`In paragraphs 43-46 of the SAC, BroadSign describes in detail allegations in another
`
`action commenced by T-Rex against BroadSign customers JCDecaux North America Holdings
`
`and JCDecaux North America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 4:16-cv-00303 (the
`
`“JCDecaux Action”). In that case, T-Rex accuses products referred to as “Showscreens, a digital
`
`media product that is used in [JCDecaux’s] Mallscape network, Defendants’ digital billboards
`
`and Defendants’ digital advertising network including their Prestige digital network” of
`
`infringing the same Patents-in-Suit. D.I. 55 at ¶ 43.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`In paragraphs 32-41 and 45 of the SAC, BroadSign describes in detail T-Rex’s
`
`allegations in T-Rex Property AB v. ContextMedia Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05673 (N.D. Ill. July
`
`11, 2016) (the “ContextMedia action”) in which T-Rex accuses BroadSign’s Digital Waiting
`
`Room Screen product of infringing the three Patents-in-Suit.
`
`
`
`The SAC alleges on a patent by patent basis that its products do not infringe exemplary
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit. BroadSign also attached copies of the complaints in the Health
`
`Media Network and ContextMedia actions which it incorporates by reference into its SAC.2 It is
`
`against this background and considering T-Rex’s detailed allegations of infringement of these
`
`BroadSign products, incorporated into the SAC by reference, that the allegations in BroadSign’s
`
`SAC must be considered.
`
`B.
`
`BroadSign’s Allegations of Invalidity
`
`
`
`BroadSign’s allegations regarding its claim for a declaratory judgment that each of the
`
`three Patents-in-Suit is invalid are contained in the following paragraphs of the SAC:
`
`The claims of the ’470 patent are invalid for failing to meet one or
`78.
`more of the requirements and/or conditions for patentability under various
`sections of the United States Code, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§
`101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, upon information and belief, claim 1
`is unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Japanese Patent
`Application Heisei 07-168544 by Nakamura (“Nakamura”). For example,
`upon information and belief, claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Nakamura in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,740,549 to Reilly
`(“Reilly”). For example, upon information and belief, claim 4 is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakamura in view of U.S. Patent
`Number 5,566,353 to Cho (“Cho”). For example, upon information and
`belief, claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an
`impermissible abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct.
`2347, 2355 (2014). For example, claim 26 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`112 as an improper means-plus-function claim and as indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) authorizes the incorporation of “a written instrument that is an exhibit” attached to a pleading and makes the material thus
`incorporated an integral part of that pleading for all purposes. See 5A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1327 (3d ed.). For this reason, the facts and
`allegations in the T-Rex complaints annexed to the SAC should be considered to be further detail for the purposes of determining the
`sufficiency of BroadSign’s allegations of both non-infringement and invalidity in the SAC.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`The claims of the ’334 patent are invalid for failing to meet one or
`82.
`more of the requirements and/or conditions for patentability under various
`sections of the United States Code, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§
`101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, upon information and belief, claim 1
`is unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Japanese Patent
`Application Heisei 07-168544 by Nakamura (“Nakamura”). For example,
`upon information and belief, claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Nakamura in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,740,549 to Reilly
`(“Reilly”).
` For example, upon information and belief, claim 22 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakamura in view of
`U.S. Patent Number 5,566,353 to Cho (“Cho”). For example, upon
`information and belief, claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
`directed to an impermissible abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
`Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). For example, claim 32 is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as an improper means-plus-function claim and as
`indefinite.
`
`
`
`The claims of the ’603 patent are invalid for failing to meet one or
`86.
`more of the requirements and/or conditions for patentability under various
`sections of the United States Code, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§
`101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, upon information and belief, claim 1
`is unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Japanese Patent
`Application Heisei 07-168544 by Nakamura (“Nakamura”). For example,
`upon information and belief, claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. Patent Number 7,382,334 to Hylin or U.S. Patent
`Number USRE39470 to Hylin. For example, upon information and belief,
`claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakamura
`in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,740,549 to Reilly (“Reilly”). For example,
`upon information and belief, claim 23 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as obvious over Nakamura in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,566,353 to
`Cho (“Cho”). For example, upon information and belief, claim 1 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an impermissible
`abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
`(2014). For example, claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as an
`improper means-plus-function claim and as indefinite.
`
`D.I. 55 at ¶¶ 78, 82, 86.
`
`C.
`
`BroadSign’s Allegations of Non-Infringement
`
`
`
`T-Rex’s motion purports to set forth all of the paragraphs of the SAC containing
`
`BroadSign’s allegations of infringement but omits BroadSign’s allegations in the first 49
`
`paragraphs containing facts common to all of the counts, focusing only on the paragraphs in the
`
`counts themselves. Specifically, paragraphs 14 through 49 describe T-Rex’s allegations from the
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`numerous other cases in which T-Rex, as plaintiff suing entities including BroadSign’s
`
`customers, accuses BroadSign’s products of infringing the ’470, ’334, and ’603 patents. In the
`
`SAC, BroadSign distinguishes its accused products from T-Rex’s allegations of infringement in
`
`those other actions. The following paragraphs from the SAC illustrate this:
`
`In another action filed by T-Rex against a BroadSign customer,
`32.
`in
`its Amended Complaint against ContextMedia
`Inc. and
`T-Rex,
`ContextMedia Health, LLC, filed on July 11, 2016, in the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:16-cv-04826
`(“the ContextMedia Amended Complaint” attached hereto as Exhibit A),
`accuses the defendants’ “Digital Waiting Room Screen” product of infringing
`the ’470 Patent, the ’334 Patent and the ’603 Patent. The ContextMedia
`defendants have no other platform provider for its “Digital Waiting Room
`Screen” product other than the BroadSign platform.
`
`In the ContextMedia Amended Complaint, T-Rex set forth its basis
`33.
`for alleging that ContextMedia infringes the ’470 Patent, the ’334 Patent, and
`the ’603 Patent by comparing each of the limitations of at least one claim of
`each patent to the Digital Waiting Room Screen product, which includes
`BroadSign components and software (the BroadSign Player).
`
`For example, in the ContextMedia Amended Complaint, T-Rex
`34.
`alleged that each of the limitations of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent are met by
`BroadSign’s software within the Digital Waiting Room Screen product in the
`form of a prose claim chart.
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 25 of the ’470 Patent . . . recites:
`35.
` A method of selectively displaying digital information at one or more of a
`plurality of locations, said method comprising:
`receiving control instructions from at least one external information mediator;
`using said control instructions to generate an exposure list, said exposure list
`specifying three or more of the following items:
`what information content is to be displayed;
`i)
`ii)
`at which of said plurality of locations said information content is to
`be displayed;
`when said information content is to be displayed for each location
`at which content is to be displayed; and
`how long said information content is to be displayed for each
`location at which content is to be displayed displaying images at
`one or more of said locations in accordance with said exposure list;
`and permitting said exposure list to be dynamically updated.
`
`iii)
`
`iv)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 12 of 26
`
`T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets
`36.
`the first limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “receives control
`instructions from at least one external information mediator.” See, Exhibit A
`at ¶ 50. While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue of whether its
`components meet this limitation, the functionality identified by T-Rex that
`allegedly meets this claim limitation is provided by BroadSign’s software
`components within the Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the
`BroadSign Player).T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen
`product meets the second limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “generate
`an exposure list, with said exposure list specifying three or more of the
`following items: i) what information content is to be displayed; ii) at which of
`the plurality of locations the information content is to be displayed; iii) when
`the information content is to be displayed for each location at which content is
`to be displayed; and iv) how long the information content is to be displayed
`for each location at which content is to be displayed.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 51.
`T-Rex further alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets
`this limitation by using “smart playlist technology [to curate] programming
`that is customized to each office according to its specific patient population.”
`See, Exhibit A at ¶ 51. While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue of
`whether its components meet this limitation, the functionality identified by
`T-Rex that allegedly meets this claim limitation is provided by BroadSign’s
`software components within the Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e.
`the BroadSign Player).
`
`T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets
`37.
`the third limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “displays images at one or
`more of said locations in accordance with the exposure list.” See, Exhibit A at
`¶ 52. T-Rex further alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product
`meets this limitation by delivering “condition-specific content to patients
`while they wait.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 52. While BroadSign disputes the
`ultimate issue of whether its components meet this limitation, the functionality
`identified by T-Rex that allegedly meets this claim limitation is provided by
`BroadSign’s software components within the Digital Waiting Room Screen
`product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets
`38.
`the fourth and final limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “permit[] the
`exposure list to be dynamically updated.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 53. T-Rex
`further alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets this
`limitation because “content is refreshed daily and sent to screens based on
`patient demographic data.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 53. While BroadSign disputes
`the ultimate issue of whether its components meet this limitation, the
`functionality identified by T-Rex that allegedly meets this claim limitation is
`provided by BroadSign’s software components within the Digital Waiting
`Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`T-Rex has also alleged in an element by element textual claim
`39.
`chart that each limitation of claim 22 of the ’334 Patent is met by BroadSign’s
`Digital Waiting Room Screen product. See, Exhibit A at ¶¶ 63-75. While
`BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue of whether its components meet these
`limitations, the functionality identified by T-Rex that allegedly meets these
`claim limitations is provided by BroadSign’s software components within the
`Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`T-Rex has also alleged in an element by element textual claim
`40.
`chart that each limitation of claims 42 and 43 of the ’603 Patent is met by
`BroadSign’s Digital Waiting Room Screen product. See, Exhibit A at 77-87.
`While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue of whether its components meet
`these limitations, the functionality identified by T-Rex that allegedly meets
`these claim limitations is provided by BroadSign’s software components
`within the Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`D.I. 55 at ¶¶ 32-40. See also D.I. 55 at ¶¶ 42-46.
`
`D.
`
`BroadSign’s Allegations of Intervening Rights
`
`
`
`One of the three Patents-in-Suit, the ’470 patent, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,005,534. BroadSign seeks a declaratory judgment that as to this patent, BroadSign and its
`
`customers have absolute and equitable intervening rights with respect to the ’470 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 252. BroadSign’s allegations for this claim in the SAC include the following:
`
`The ’470 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,005,534 (“the ’534
`
`69.
`patent”).
`
`As of January 16, 2007, when the ’470 patent reissued, BroadSign was
`70.
`selling the product that has been accused by T-Rex of infringement in lawsuits
`against BroadSign’s customers.
`
`71.
`reissue.
`
`Each of the original claims of the ’534 patent were amended during
`
`The claims of the ’470 patent are not substantially identical to the claims
`72.
`of the ’534 patent as originally issued.
`
`BroadSign and its customers are entitled to absolute and equitable
`73.
`intervening rights with respect to the ’470 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 252.
`
`As a result of the acts described herein, there exists a substantial
`74.
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
`declaratory judgment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`D.I. 55 at ¶¶ 69-74.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`
`Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may dismiss
`
`an action that, as pled, fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The “purpose of
`
`a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide the merits.” Nalco
`
`Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is
`
`reserved for “actions that are fatally flawed in their legal premises and destined to fail. . . .”
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 988 F.2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
`
`see Cardigan Mountain School v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 787 F.3d 82, 84 (1st Cir.
`
`2015); Halebian v. Berv, 644 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[T]he purpose of Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test, in a streamlined fashion, the formal sufficiency of the
`
`plaintiff’s statement of a claim for relief without resolving a contest regarding its substantive
`
`merits.”). The Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe all
`
`reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, when ruling on a motion to dismiss. Nalco, 883
`
`F.3d at 1347-50; Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(on a motion to dismiss a patent infringement claim, “all factual inferences drawn from the
`
`[patent] specification must be weighed in favor of [the patentee], the non-moving party.”). The
`
`dismissal of a claim is only proper if, “after drawing all reasonable inferences in [plaintiff’s]
`
`favor, it is clear that the [plaintiff] can prove no set of facts consistent with [plaintiff’s] claim that
`
`would entitle [plaintiff] to relief.” Chou v. University of Chicago, 254 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS-HBP Document 65 Filed 08/30/18 Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Invalidity Has Been Sufficiently Alleged
`
`
`
`The SAC contains sufficient facts to allow the Court to find that each and every claim of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. For each of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, the SAC identifies specific exemplary claims for each ground of invalidity, prior
`
`art references to support its allegations with respect to both anticipation and obviousness, the
`
`subject matter which BroadSign alleges to be patent ineligible, and provides examples of terms
`
`in specific claims that BroadSign alleges are indefinite.
`
`
`
`With respect to the ’470 patent, the SAC provides the specific grounds for invalidity
`
`based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, the