Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

T-Jat Systems 2006 Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 28, 2018

T-JAT SYSTEMS 2006, LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
EXPEDIA, INC. (DE), EXPEDIA, INC. (WA), and ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendants.

          John G. Day, Andrew C. Mayo, ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE; Guy Yonay (argued), Daniel Melman, PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER BARATZ LLP, New York, NY. Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          Steven L. Caponi, K&L GATES LLP, Wilmington, DE; Theodore Angelis (argued), K&L GATES LLP, Seattle, WA; Eric A. Prager, K&L GATES LLP, New York, NY. Attorneys for Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

         Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Improper Venue (D.I. 25) and related briefing (D.I. 26, 28, 30). The Court held oral argument on November 16, 2017. (D.I. 43 ("Tr.")). On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (D.I. 36). The parties submitted additional briefing. (D.I. 36-2, 37, 40).

         For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny without prejudice Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Improper Venue, as to failure to state a claim, and will grant that motion as to improper venue over Expedia, Inc. (WA). (D.I. 25). The remaining Defendants may re-raise the § 101 issue at summary judgment. The Court will dismiss as moot Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (D.I. 36).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action on July 7, 2016 against Defendant, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8, 064, 434 ("the '434 patent") and U.S Patent No. 9, 210, 142 ("the '142 patent"). (D.I. 1). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 7, 2017. (D.I. 24).

         Plaintiff alleges infringement of claim 1 of the '434 patent and claims 1, 9, and 12 of the '142 patent. (Id.). Claim 1 of the '434 patent provides:

1. A method for providing a user of a telephone device with a capability to use Internet-based applications, which method comprises the steps of:

transmitting from said telephone device an indication towards a first server, denoting a request to be connected to an Internet-based application residing at a second server;

providing said user with a menu from which the user selects a requested Internet-based application;
after selecting an application, establishing a communication path that extends between said telephone device and said second server via said first server;
at said first server, creating a virtual client entity specific to said telephone device and said Internet-based application to be used, created specifically to allow communication between said telephone device and said Internet-based application residing at said second server, and maintained only for the duration of a communication session that is about to take place between said user and said Internet-based application, thereby providing the user of said telephone device with the capability to use said Internet-based application; and
exchanging communications between said second server and said telephone device.

('434 patent, claim 1). On July 21, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Improper Venue. (D.I. 25).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Motion to Dismiss

         Rule 8 requires a complainant to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) allows the accused party to bring a motion to dismiss the claim for failing to meet this standard. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion may be granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the complainant, a court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).

         "Though 'detailed factual allegations' are not required, a complaint must do more than simply provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.'" Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). I am "not required to credit bald assertions or legal conclusions improperly alleged in the complaint." In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, "for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted." See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S.Ct. 346, 346 (2014).

         A complainant must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has "substantive plausibility." Id. at 347. That plausibility must be found on the face of the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the [complainant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [accused] is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679.

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.