United States District Court, D. Delaware
E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE;
Perry Goldberg, Progress LLP, Los Angeles, CA - attorneys for
Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Renee M. Mosley, Richards, Layton
& Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Charanjit Brahma, Anup M.
Shah, Oscar A. Figueroa, Troutman Sanders LLP, San Francisco,
CA-attorneys for Defendants
NOREIKA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendants Lenovo (United States)
Inc.'s, Lenovo Holding Co., Inc.'s, and Motorola
Mobility LLC's (collectively, "Defendants" or
"Lenovo") partial motion to dismiss (D.I. 33) the
Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 30) for failure to state a
claim on the grounds that Plaintiff DoDots Licensing
Solutions LLC ("Plaintiff) does not plausibly allege
induced infringement of the asserted patents. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART
the second time that the Court is addressing the sufficiency
of Plaintiffs infringement allegations. On December 19, 2018,
the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendants'
partial motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that
Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege various theories of
direct and indirect infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9, 369,
545 ("the '545 Patent"), 8, 020, 083 ("the
'083 Patent") and 8, 510, 407 ("the '407
Patent") (collectively, "the
Patents-in-Suit"). (See D.I. 28 &
Although Plaintiff had adequately pleaded direct infringement
of the '083 and '407 Patents, the Court dismissed
Plaintiffs claim of direct infringement of the '545
Patent based on any activity other than Defendants' use
of the accused products. (See D.I. 28 at 4-6). As to
indirect infringement, the Court dismissed the claims of
induced infringement for each of the Patents-in-Suit because
Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that Defendants
possessed the requisite knowledge of infringement or the
specific intent to induce infringement. (Id. at
January 9, 2019, and in response to the Court's order
dismissing certain claims of direct and indirect
infringement, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint,
which continues to allege that Defendants directly and
indirectly infringe various claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
(See D.I. 30). As to direct infringement, Plaintiff
now alleges only that Defendants infringe the '545 Patent
by using the accused products (see D.I. 30 ¶
32), and the allegations of direct infringement of the
'083 and '407 Patents remain the same. As to induced
infringement, the Second Amended Complaint includes
additional allegations regarding Defendants' purported
knowledge of infringement and specific intent to induce
infringement. (Compare D.I. 30 ¶ 29,
with D.I. 15 ¶ 29). On January 28, 2019,
Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), claiming that the Second Amended Complaint still
fails to plausibly allege induced infringement of any of the
three Patents-in-Suit. (See D.I. 33 & 34).
ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court
must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. See Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d
223, 229 (3d Cir. 2010); see also Phillips v. Crtty. of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232-33 (3d Cir. 2008).
"[A] court need not 'accept as true allegations that
contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by
exhibit,' such as the claims and the patent
specification." Secured Mail Sols, LLC v. Universal
Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting
Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 570 Fed.Appx. 927,
931 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Nor is the Court required to accept as
true bald assertions, unsupported conclusions or unwarranted
inferences. See TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., No.
13-1703-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 1479027, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 27,
2018). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if a
complaint does not contain "sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp, v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Fowler
v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).
This plausibility standard obligates a plaintiff to provide
"more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Instead, the pleadings
must provide sufficient factual allegations to allow the
Court to "draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,"
Iqbal, 506 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiffs Claims of Post-Suit Induced Infringement
the prior pleading, the Second Amended Complaint includes
allegations that Defendants indirectly infringe "one or
more claims" of each of the Patents-in-Suit.
(See D.I. 30 ¶¶ 32, 38, 44; see
also D.I. 15 ¶¶ 32, 38, 44 (First Amended
Complaint)). As to induced infringement, Plaintiff now
As alleged below, Defendants induce infringement of the
Patents-in-Suit by their customers, and intend to do so,
through their marketing materials, brochures, product
manuals, and other materials such as their website,
https://www.lenovoappexplorer.com/enus/, with knowledge of
the Patents-in-Suit and their customers' infringement of
them. Lenovo actively markets its "Lenovo App
Explorer," which it touts at the Lenovo App Explorer
website as a "one stop shop to discover, evaluate,
choose and install apps." Lenovo also states at that
website that Lenovo gives users a selection of the "most
popular" apps, which shows that Lenovo not only knows
its customers are using the apps but Lenovo encourages the
use by providing the selection of popular apps directly to
the customers. For the same reasons that Lenovo knows its own
use infringes the patents-in-suit, Lenovo also knows that its
customers' use likewise infringes the patents-in-suit.
Lenovo has been aware of all three patents-in-suit since at
least the filing of the First Amended Complaint in this
action, yet continues its own infringing activity as well as
its inducement of infringement by its customers. On
information and belief, Lenovo in fact has been aware of all
three patents-in-suit even before the filing the First
Amended Complaint, at least from shortly after the filing of
the original Complaint.
(D.I, 30 ¶ 29). The Second Amended Complaint does not
include any other theories of indirect infringement liability
and there are no further ...