Case 6:12-cv MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1365

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v.

Case 6:16-cv RWS-JDL Document 209 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 17201

Case 6:12-cv MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418

Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338

of the Magistrate Judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION V. A-13-CA-359 LY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION. v. Case No. 4:17-cv ALM-KPJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Case: 1:15-cv CAB Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/22/15 1 of 7. PageID #: 87 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 3:11-cv JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR ORDER

Case 4:15-cv A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:12-CV REDRIDGE FINANCE GROUP, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION

Case 8:13-cv VMC-MAP Document 91 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv DPG Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION V. A-17-CA-568-LY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

Case 9:16-cv KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2017 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:08-cv LED-RSP Document 474 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 22100

3:14-cv MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 14-cv Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON. DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al., : Case No.

USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv JVB-JEM document 1 filed 04/26/18 page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 12-cv HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA DKT. #42

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:05-cv DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:11-cv DDP-MRW Document 23 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:110 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

ORDER. Plaintiffs, ZOHO CORPORATION, Defendant. VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC AND VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., CAUSE NO.: A-13-CA SS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. 8:13-cv-2428-T-33TBM ORDER

Case 6:16-cv PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066

Case: 1:16-cv CAB Doc #: 26 Filed: 11/14/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 316 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 8:15-cv JSM-EAJ Document 79 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID 807 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

Case 2:18-cv KJD-CWH Document 7 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 7

AIA's Impact On Multidefendant Patent Litigation: Part 2

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 37 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:170

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS

Case 2:14-cv JRG Document 68 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2010

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 12-CV-5162 ORDER

Case 1:13-cv RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Case 1:12-cv JCC-TRJ Document 27 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 168

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER

Zervos v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Maryland In Re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 8:14-cv VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,

Plaintiff Betty, Inc. ( Betty ), brings this action asserting copyright infringement and

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

Case 6:14-cv JDL Document 1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case No. 1:08-cv GTS-RFT REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH

Case 2:16-cv JMV-MF Document 51 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 386

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Pleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18

Case 2:15-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM

Transcription:

Case 6:12-cv-00398-MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1365 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC vs. Plaintiff, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. Defendants. No. 6:12cv398 MHS-JDL JURY DEMANDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant Oki Data Americas, Inc. s ( Oki Data ) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Claims Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim and for Improper Joinder (Doc. No. 26) ( Motion ). Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovation LLC ( USEI ) filed a Response (Doc. No. 29), to which Oki Data filed a Reply (Doc. No. 30) and USEI filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 35). Upon consideration, the Court RECOMMENDS DENYING the Motion. BACKGROUND USEI filed its original complaint for patent infringement against Oki Data on June 22, 2012. (Doc. No. 1) ( COMPLAINT ). Specifically, the complaint accuses Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (collectively Samsung ); and Oki Data of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,732,094 (the 094 Patent ), 5,434,872 (the 872 Patent ), 5,530,874 (the 874 Patent ), and 5,299,313 (the 313 Patent ) (collectively patents-in-suit ). COMPLAINT at 1. On August 22, 2012, Oki Data brought the instant motion seeking dismissal of

Case 6:12-cv-00398-MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1366 USEI s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) and for improper joinder. (Doc. No. 26). DISCUSSION The major premise for Oki Data s instant motion is that USEI falsely alleges that certain Oki Data Accused Products incorporate accused Samsung System-on-Chips. See MOTION at 3 ( this allegation is false the Oki Data Accused Products do not use any Samsung System-on- Chips, accused or otherwise. ) (emphasis in original). Oki Data even attaches a declaration to the instant motion to demonstrate the falsity of that allegation. MOTION at 5, Ex. A. As an initial matter, the Court declines to inquire into the truth of the allegations asserted in the complaint as Oki Data requests. See EPCO Carbon Dioxide Prods. Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 467 F.3d 466, 467 (5th Cir. 2006) ( the allegations in the complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the complaint must be taken as true. ) Oki Data acknowledges its declaration is outside the pleadings and even cites authority that the factual matter in the complaint must be accepted as true to support its own position. See Motion at 4, 6 (citing and quoting Twombly the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face (566 U.S. at 570); [a]lthough this 12(b)(6) motion stands on its own apart from the declaration attached as Exhibit A ). To the extent Oki Data challenges the complaint as asserting insufficient factual matter related to Oki Data s incorporation of System-on-Chips, the Court finds that argument insufficient to warrant dismissal. To support a 12(b)(6) dismissal, Oki Data argues that USEI fails to allege the Samsung System-on-Chips are functionally integrated into the Oki Data accused products and fails to specifically allege which of the Samsung System-on-Chips are integrated. However, USEI does allege the System-on-Chips are functionally integrated, and

Case 6:12-cv-00398-MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1367 appears to point to those products with a level of specificity that satisfies prudent pleading standards. See COMPLAINT at 5 ( Samsung further imports, makes, uses, offers for sale, and/or sells certain products and devices which embody one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit either alone or functionally integrated into host systems (such as one or more of the Samsung Accused Systems and/or the Oki Data Accused Products) including, without limitation, products employing Ethernet technology similar to that found in the Samsung S3C2510 and/or S3C4510 System-on-Chips ) (emphasis added). Accordingly, USEI s allegation forms the basis of a plausible claim for relief when taken as true. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007) ( we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. ) Finally, taking the allegations as true, the Court finds that Samsung and Oki Data are properly joined under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ( AIA ). The AIA sets forth two prongs for determining proper joinder of accused infringers: (1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and (2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action. 35 U.S.C. 299 (2011). Here, Oki Data relies on Motorola Mobility to support its position that Samsung and Oki Data are not properly joined. MOTION at 9. In Motorola Mobility, the court held that HTC and Motorola were not properly joined because they were competitors whose respective accused Android software was not the same. C.A. No. 1:12-cv-20271-RNS, 2012 WL 3113932, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2012). Oki Data merely relies on the fact that Oki Data and Samsung are

Case 6:12-cv-00398-MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1368 competitors to apply this case law to the present situation, and thereby misses an important distinction: in the present case, USEI accuses Oki Data s products that allegedly functionally integrate Samsung System-on-Chips of infringement. Put simply, on this allegation, we are not talking about similar products as was the case in Motorola Mobility, we are talking about the same product an Oki Data accused product that functionally integrates Samsung System-on- Chips. The Court finds that this allegation, taken as true, satisfies the same product prong of the AIA joinder standard. Naturally, as Samsung and Oki Data are the only Defendants in this civil action, there are undoubtedly common questions of fact related to the alleged integration of the System-on-Chips. That is, for the accused integrated products, questions of fact regarding integration will be common to both Samsung and Oki Data. Accordingly, the Court finds the second joinder prong is also satisfied, and joinder is proper under the AIA. 1 Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Court RECOMMENDS DENYING Oki Data s Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Oki Data s Motion be DENIED. Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge s Report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report. A party s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of 1 As the instant request to dismiss for improper joinder was brought by Oki Data in conjunction with a 12(b)(6) request to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court has resolved this matter on the pleadings pursuant to Oki Data s motion practice. Should facts arise during discovery that would re-urge the Court s evaluation of joinder, Oki Data is free to present those to the Court at the proper time.

Case 6:12-cv-00398-MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1369 unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996). SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of February, 2013.