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.

Wasica Finance GmbH v. Schrader International Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 20, 2018

WASICA FINANCE GMBH and BLUEARC FINANCE AG, Plaintiffs,
v.
SCHRADER INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Defendants.

          Jeremy Douglas Anderson, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., Wilmington, DE Michael J. Kane and Jason M. Zucchi, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., Minneapolis, ME Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Mary B. Graham and Jeremy A. Tigan, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNEL LLP, Wilmington, DE Brian P. Collins and Robert M. Fuhrer, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, McLean, VA Attorneys for Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiffs Wasica Finance GmbH and BlueArc Finance AG (together, "Wasica") filed suit against Defendant Schrader International, Inc. on July 29, 2013, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5, 602, 524 ("the'524 patent"). (D.I. 1) Wasica later joined Defendants Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. and Schrader Electronics Limited. (D.I. 6) The case was stayed by agreement during the pendency of inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings. (D.I. 20) On November 10, 2017, after the conclusion of the IPR, Wasica filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). (D.I. 27) On December 8, 2017, Defendants (together, "Schrader") moved to dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), based on Schrader's contention that Wasica failed to plausibly allege infringement. (D.I. 28)

         For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny Schrader's motion to dismiss.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The '524 patent generally relates to systems for monitoring air pressure in pneumatic tires. Schrader manufactures tire pressure monitoring systems ("TPMS") that include sensors mounted on vehicle wheels ("TPMS/EZ Sensors") and receivers that communicate with these sensors ("TPMS Receivers"). (D.I. 27) Wasica alleges that Schrader induced infringement of the '524 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing TPMS/EZ Sensors and TPMS Receivers. (Id.)

         This suit was filed in 2013 but was subsequently stayed, from March 11, 2014 to November 2, 2017, pending the completion of IPR proceedings. (D.I. 26) The IPR and subsequent Federal Circuit review invalidated claims 1-5 and 9-19, leaving claims 6-8 and 20. (D.I. 25)

         In its TAC, Wasica alleges infringement of claim 6 and includes a table of allegedly infringing part numbers. (D.I. 27) Claim 6, which depends from claims 1 and 2, contains the following limitation, on which the pending motion focuses:

A device for monitoring the air pressure in the air chamber of pneumatic tires fitted on vehicle wheels comprising:
. . . wherein the transmitter comprises an emitter-control device which controls the emittance of the pressure transmitting signal and a signal-generating device which generates an identification signal which is unique for the transmitter and clearly identifies same ....

(D.I. 27, Ex. A) (emphasis added) Claims 7, 8, and 20 depend from claim 6.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         Evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the Court to accept as true all material allegations of the complaint. See Spruill v. Gillis,372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.,114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court may grant such a motion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to ...


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.