United States District Court, D. Delaware
before me is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.I. 10). The
Parties have briefed the issues. (D.I. 11, 14, 15). For the
reasons set out below, Defendants' motion is
filed its Complaint on June 4, 2018. (D.I. 1). It alleges
Defendants' Candy Crush Saga, Candy Crush Soda
Saga, and Bubble Witch 2 Saga games
("Accused Products") infringe all the claims of
U.S. Patent No. 9, 454, 762 ('"762 Patent).
(Id. at ¶ 9). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants directly, indirectly, jointly, and willfully
infringe the Patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-29).
The '762 Patent covers a "system and method for
delivering and serving local content and advertisements to an
end user on a network, including wired and wireless
networks." . ('762 Patent at 1:13-16).
reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as
true. See BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555-56 (2007). Rule 8(a) requires "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Id. at 555. The factual allegations
do not have to be detailed, but they must provide more than
labels, conclusions, or a "formulaic recitation" of
the claim elements. Id. ("Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level... on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact)."). Moreover, there must be sufficient factual
matter to state a facially plausible claim to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
facial plausibility standard is satisfied when the
complaint's factual content "allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. ("Where a
complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief."
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
argue that every claim in the Complaint fails to meet the
pleading standard. I largely disagree and find that the
Complaint is almost entirely sufficient. However, Defendants
are correct that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a
claim of willful infringement.
Sufficiency of Allegations Against Each Defendant
Complaint sufficiently asserts each Defendant's role in
the alleged infringement. Defendants argue that the
Complaint's use of "King" to refer collectively
to the various King entities amounts to a failure to allege
individual liability. (D.I. 11 at 6-8). However, a complaint
that collectively refers to defendants meets Rule 8's
pleading standard if "it can be reasonably inferred that
each and every allegation is made against each individual
defendant." Zond, Inc. v. Fujitsu Semiconductor
Ltd., 990 F.Supp.2d 50, 53-54 (D. Mass. 2014). Plaintiff
specifically identifies Defendant King.com, Ltd. as
committing certain allegedly infringing acts in Paragraph 9
of the Complaint. (D.I. 1). Plaintiff goes on to allege
specific acts of Defendants King.com, Inc. and King.com
(U.S.), LLC in Paragraph 10. (Id.). Those factual
allegations are sufficient to support an inference that all
three King Defendants engaged in the alleged infringing
conduct. Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled claims against
each of the three defendants.
Complaint adequately alleges direct infringement. To satisfy
the Iqbal pleading standard in a patent case,
"[s]pecific facts are not necessary." Disc
Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc., 888 F.3d
1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). The Complaint need only
give defendant "fair notice of what the [infringement]
claim is and the ground upon which it rests."
Id. In the Complaint, Plaintiff identifies specific
Accused Products which it alleges directly infringe the
claims of the '762 Patent. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶
18-19). "[It] describes the overall purpose of the
invention and describes the elements of the claims, including
the claimed use of push notifications to deliver
browser-independent content to a networked device."
(D.I. 14 at 7). In the infringement count specifically,
Plaintiff identifies the Accused Products, identifies the
asserted claims, and explains the basis of the infringement
allegation. (See D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 16-29).
Those allegations, when read with the rest of the Complaint,,
sufficiently describe how the Defendants' Accused
Products allegedly infringe the claims.
Complaint plausibly states a claim for induced infringement.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), "[w]hoever actively
induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an
infringer." "To prove induced infringement, the
patentee must show direct infringement, and that the alleged
infringer knowingly induced infringement and possesses
specific intent to encourage another's
infringement." Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
681 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Pre-suit knowledge is not required to plead a
claim of induced infringement. See Walker Digital, LLC v.
Facebook, Inc., 852 F.Supp.2d 559, 565 (D. Del. 2012).
To plausibly plead intent, a complaint must contain facts
"showing that [the alleged indirect infringer]
specifically intended [the direct infringers] to infringe
[the patent]." In re Bill of Lading
Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Lit., 681 F.3d
1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs filing of the
Complaint is sufficient to establish the requisite knowledge
for post-filing indirect infringement liability. Moreover,
the Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to
support an inference of specific intent. (See e.g.,
D.I. 1 at ¶ 25 ("King encourages continued direct
infringement of the . .. claims of the '762 Patent by at
least widely publicizing its Accused Products and providing
on its website and in the Accused Products themselves
instructions for conducting the directly infringing
use.")). Thus, Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to
support a claim of induced infringement.
Complaint plausibly states a claim for contributory
infringement. A plaintiff sufficiently pleads contributory
infringement when it asserts that a defendant: "(1) had
knowledge of the patent; (2) sold products especially made
for infringing use; (3) had knowledge of the infringing use;
(4) sold products with no substantial noninfringing use; and
(5) [others] directly infringed." Walke ...