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.

SuperInterconnect Technologies LLC v. HP Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

December 18, 2019

SUPERINTERCONNECT TECHNOLOGIES LLC Plaintiff,
v.
HP INC., Defendant.

          Brian Farnan, Michael Farnan, FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jeffrey Bragalone, Jonathan Rastegar, T. William Kennedy, BRAGALONE CONROY P.C., Dallas, Texas Counsel for Plaintiff.

          Jack Blumenfeld, Jennifer Ying, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT, & TUNNEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Cory Davis, Theresa Weisenberger, BAKER & HOSTETLERLLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Daniel Goettle, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jennifer Kurcz, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Chicago, Illinois Counsel for Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          COLM F. CONNOLLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Super Interconnect Technologies LLC (SIT) has filed a three-count complaint against HP Inc. for patent infringement. D.I. 1. Before me is HP's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.I. 9. For the reasons discussed below, I will grant HP's motion.

         I. BACKGROUND[1]

         SIT alleges in its complaint that, "by, among other things, making, having made, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing electronic devices with Universal Flash Storage (UFS)," HP has and continues to directly infringe and induce infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 627, 044; 6, 463, 092; and 7, 158, 593. D.I. 1 ¶¶ 12, 27, 42.[2] SIT alleges in particular that the HP Envy x2 detachable personal computer incorporates UFS, id. ¶ 13, and directly infringes the asserted patents, id. ¶¶ 13, 28, 43. HP seeks to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. D.I. 9 at 1.

         I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR STATING A CLAIM

         To state a claim on which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but the complaint must include more than mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). The complaint must set forth enough facts, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Deciding whether a claim is plausible is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679 (citation omitted).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Direct Infringement Claims

         1. Legal Standards

         Liability for direct infringement arises when a party "without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To plead direct infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts "that plausibly indicate that the accused products contain each of the limitations found in the claim." TMI Sols. LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., 2018 WL 4660370, at *9 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2018) (citations omitted).

         "The complaint must place the potential infringer on notice of what activity is being accused of infringement." Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). To provide notice, a plaintiff must generally do more than assert that the accused product meets the claim elements; it must show how the defendant plausibly infringes by alleging some facts connecting the accused product to the claim elements. See SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., 230 F.Supp.3d 351, 353 (D. Del. 2017) (granting a motion to dismiss a direct infringement claim because "[t]he complaint contains no attempt to connect anything in the patent claims to anything about any of the accused products").

         2. ...


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.