UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`*
`
`**
`
`**
`
`CARDIONET, LLC, and BRAEMAR
`MANUFACTURING, LLC
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`INFOBIONIC, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`* O
`
`RDER
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`*
`
`**
`
`TALWANI, D.J.
`
`November 20, 2015
`
`Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay
`
`Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patents-In-Suit [#17]. Defendant seeks dismissal for lack of
`
`subject matter jurisdiction or a stay pending review of each of the patents-in-suit by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board. For the reasons set forth
`
`below, the motion is DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`Motion to Dismiss
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code. The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), which respectively confer jurisdiction to the district court for
`
`civil actions arising under the laws of the United States in general and under the patent laws of
`
`the United States in particular.
`
`Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion contends that Plaintiffs lack standing because no case
`
`or controversy existed at the time Plaintiffs filed the complaint as Plaintiffs suffered no “injury in
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00783
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1069 Page 0001
`
`

`

`fact.” The “injury in fact” element of standing requires “an invasion of a legally protected
`
`interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
`
`hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and quotation
`
`marks omitted). Defendant contends that the complaint fails to establish an “injury in fact”
`
`because it accuses only one of Defendant’s products of infringement (the “MoMe® Kardia
`
`System”) and that product is incapable of infringement because it is still under development and
`
`not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
`
`A defendant may challenge a plaintiff’s allegations of subject matter jurisdiction under
`
`Rule 12(b)(1) in two ways. First, a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the
`
`jurisdictionally-significant facts alleged in a complaint. Valentin v. Hospital Bella Vista, 254
`
`F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001). In considering such “sufficiency challenges,” “the court must
`
`credit the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations . . . , draw all reasonable inferences from
`
`them in [its] favor, and dispose of the challenge accordingly.” Id. Second, a defendant may
`
`“controvert[] the accuracy (rather than the sufficiency) of the jurisdictional facts asserted by the
`
`plaintiff and proffer[] material of evidentiary quality in support of that position.” Id. In such
`
`“factual challenges,” the court affords no presumptive weight to the plaintiff’s jurisdictional
`
`allegations. Id.
`
`To the extent that Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the jurisdictional allegations in
`
`the complaint, the court accepts those allegations as true, id., and determines that they are
`
`sufficient, at this stage, to establish that Plaintiffs have suffered “injury in fact” and have
`
`standing. According to the complaint, Defendant has infringed Plaintiffs’ patents by committing
`
`acts of infringement with “products . . . including but not limited to the MoMe® Kardia System.”
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 25, 38, 52, 65 (emphasis added). Defendant acknowledges that before it began
`
`2
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00783
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1069 Page 0002
`
`

`

`developing the MoMe® Kardia System, it developed a “first generation” device—the “MoMe®
`
`System”—which did obtain FDA approval. Defendant further concedes that “the names
`
`‘MoMe® System’ and ‘MoMe® Kardia System’ were used interchangeably, and there is no
`
`correspondence between the name and the design generation.” Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss
`
`3 n.7 [#32]. Plaintiffs’ complaint similarly alleges that that Defendant “recently added ‘Kardia’
`
`to the MoMe® name,” Compl. ¶ 17 n.1, and indeed, several exhibits attached to the complaint
`refer to the accused product as “MoMe®” or the “MoMe® System.” See Exs. F-K to Compl.
`
`The court therefore understands the complaint’s allegations regarding “products . . . including
`
`but not limited to the MoMe® Kardia System” to be allegations about the “MoMe® System” as
`
`well. Thus construed, the jurisdictional allegations are not limited to Defendant’s “second
`
`generation device” as Defendant contends, and do assert that Defendant’s products have
`
`infringed Plaintiffs’ patents and caused Plaintiffs harm. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
`
`Defendant’s products satisfy the claims of each patent, Compl. ¶¶ 26-33; 39-47; 53-60; 66-73,
`
`and that Defendant “has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement” with those
`
`products that have harmed Plaintiffs, id. ¶¶ 36-37; 50-51; 63-64; 76-77. The allegations are
`
`therefore sufficient, at this stage, to establish that Plaintiffs have standing.
`
`To the extent Defendant challenges the accuracy of Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations,
`
`the court finds that the materials offered to controvert them either do not address the allegations
`
`regarding the “first generation device” or are not of evidentiary quality. The materials offered by
`
`Defendant include: 1) a copy of an attorney letter sent to Plaintiffs on August 7, 2015 stating that
`
`the “MoMe® Kardia System” has not obtained FDA approval (Caffrey Decl. Supp. Def.’s Mot.
`
`Dismiss Ex. 2); 2) a photograph from Defendant’s booth at a May 2015 exhibition showing that
`
`Defendant identified the MoMe device as “not commercially available in the US at this time”
`
`3
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00783
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1069 Page 0003
`
`

`

`(Caffrey Decl. Supp. Def.’s Reply Ex. 1); and 3) an article published by the Boston Business
`
`Journal on August 25, 2015 and updated August 26, 2015 stating that Defendant decided to
`
`“delay launch” of its first generation device until the second generation device was ready to
`
`market (Caffrey Decl. Supp. Def.’s Reply Ex. 7). First, the attorney letter and photograph do not
`
`address the allegations that Defendant’s first generation device infringed Plaintiffs’ patents at all,
`
`and thus do not establish that those allegations are untrue. Second, though the Boston Business
`
`Journal article does address the allegations about Defendant’s first generation device, that article
`
`is hearsay and therefore is not material of “evidentiary quality.” Valentin, 254 F.3d at 363.
`
`Thus, none of the materials offered by Defendant support their position that Plaintiffs’
`
`jurisdictional allegations are inaccurate.
`
`Therefore, whether construed as a “sufficiency challenge” or a “factual challenge,”
`
`Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion fails to demonstrate that Plaintiffs lack standing.
`
`Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
`
`II.
`
`Motion to Stay
`
`As an alternative to dismissal, Defendant seeks a stay of this action pending inter-partes
`
`review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Defendant states that staying this action pending
`
`such review will ultimately allow the court to more efficiently resolve this dispute. However,
`
`Defendant’s petitions seeking inter-partes review were only submitted in August 2015. The
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board has not yet decided whether to institute inter-partes review and
`
`may not do so for several months. Accordingly the court DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay,
`
`without prejudice.
`
`Date: November 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Indira Talwani
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`4
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00783
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1069 Page 0004
`
`