Case 6:20-cv-00156-ADA Document 14-3 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:19-cv-00255-ADA Document 38 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 3Case 6:20-cv-00156-ADA Document 14-3 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 4
`Case 6:19-cv-00254-ADA Document 52 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaint fj;
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVL NO. 6:19-CV-000254-ADA
`
`CIVL NO. 6:19-C V-000255-ADA
`
`CIVL NO. 6:19-C V-000256-ADA
`
`ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART INTEL CORPORATION'S
`MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`AND ENHANCED DAMAGES BASED ON WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT UNDER
`FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6)
`
`Before the Court is Intel Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Claims for Direct and Indirect
`
`Infringement and Enhanced Damages Based on Willful Infringement Under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. Number 40. VLSI Technology, LLC filed its Response on June
`
`17, 2019. Dkt. Number 46. Intel filed its Reply on June 24, 2019. Dkt. Number 48. The Court
`
`heard arguments from both Parties on Intel's Motion on July 31, 2019. After considering all
`
`related pleadings and the relevant law, the Court is of the opinion that Intel's Motion should be
`
`denied in part and granted in part for the following reasons.
`
`The Court turns first to Intel's argument that VLSI's claims of indirect infringement
`
`should be dismissed.' Intel's argument turns, at least in part, on whether Intel was willfully blind
`
`to the existence of certain patents. The Court finds that Intel's policy that forbids its employees
`
`from reading patents held by outside companies or individuals is insufficient to meet the test of
`
`willful blindness. However, the Court does not believe that VLSI's claims of indirect
`
`infringement should be dismissed with prejudice. Instead, the Court believes that the best course
`
`1 The Court is addressing only VLSI's claims of indirect infringement prior to the filing of the Delaware lawsuit
`where the patents were asserted.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:19-cv-00255-ADA Document 38 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 3Case 6:20-cv-00156-ADA Document 14-3 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 4
`Case 6:19-cv-00254-ADA Document 52 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`of action to take is the one that it suggested at the hearing. Specifically, that the Court will
`
`dismiss VLSI's claims of indirect infringement without prejudice to the refihing of these claims
`
`after discovery has been conducted. The Court intends to be very liberal in the discovery that it
`
`will allow VLSI to conduct. For example, VLSI may do discovery into its belief that Intel has
`
`been provided with notice of unasserted NXP patents, and the reasons for Intel's failure to
`
`ascertain information about the patents asserted in this litigation. If after VLSI has taken
`
`discovery it decides to amend its complaint to make allegations of indirect infringement, it will
`
`be free to do so, subject to the provisions of Rule 11. Intel can then file a motion for summary
`
`judgment with respect to that issue if it wishes to do so.
`
`The same holding applies to the issue of enhanced damages based on willful
`
`infringement. The Court will dismiss VLSI's claims for enhanced damages based on willful
`
`infringement without prejudice to the refiling of these claims after discovery has been
`
`conducted. As stated before, the Court intends to be very liberal in the discovery that it will
`
`allow VLSI to conduct. After VLSI has taken discovery, it may decide to amend its complaint to
`
`include enhanced damages based on willful infringement. Intel may also file a motion for
`
`summary judgment with respect to this issue if it wishes to do so. With respect to Intel's
`
`argument that VLSI's claims of direct infringement should be dismissed, the Court finds that
`
`Intel's argument is without merit; therefore, it will deny Intel's Motion with respect to VLSI's
`
`claims of direct infringement.
`
`Because of the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Intel Corporation's Motion to
`
`Dismiss Claims for Direct and Indirect Infringement and Enhanced Damages Based on Willful
`
`Infringement Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 2(b)(6) should be DENIED IN PART and
`
`GRANTED IN PART. It is therefore ORDERED that VLSI's claims for indirect infringement
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:19-cv-00255-ADA Document 38 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 3Case 6:20-cv-00156-ADA Document 14-3 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 4
`Case 6:19-cv-00254-ADA Document 52 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`and enhanced damages based on willful
`
`infringement are DISMISSED WITHOUT
`
`PREJUDICE. Any relief not specifically granted in this Order is DENIED.
`
`SIGNED this 6th day of August 2019.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3
`
`