Kelora Systems, LLC v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 261

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 213 Dell, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2011)

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 11-01548 CW v. TARGET CORPORATION; OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED; SHOPKO STORES OPERATING CO., LLC; BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION; CHELSEA & SCOTT, LTD., d/b/a ONE STEP AHEAD & LEAPS AND BOUNDS; NATIONAL BUSINESS FURNITURE, LLC; BUYONLINENOW, INC.; ROCKLER COMPANIES, INC.; IDW, LLC, d/b/a ID WHOLESALER; 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.; PC CONNECTION, INC.; EASTBAY, INC.; MASON COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a MARYLAND SQUARE; AMAZON.COM, INC.; DELL, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.; NEWEGG INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.; and CIRCUITCITY.COM INC., ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DELL, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 213) Defendants. / 17 18 Plaintiff Kelora Systems, LLC, charges Defendants Target 19 Corporation; OfficeMax Incorporated; ShopKo Stores Operating Co., 20 LLC; Briggs & Stratton Corporation; National Business Furniture, 21 LLC; Rockler Companies, Inc.; 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.; PC 22 Connection, Inc.; Mason Companies, Inc., doing business as Maryland 23 Square; Amazon.com, Inc.; Dell, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; Newegg 24 Inc.; Costco Wholesale Corporation; Hewlett-Packard Development 25 Company, L.P.; and CircuitCity.com, Inc., with infringement of U.S. 26 Patent No. 6,275,821 (’821 patent). 27 dismiss the patent infringement claim Kelora brought against it. 28 Defendant Dell, Inc. moves to 1 No other Defendant joins Dell’s motion. 2 on the papers. 3 parties, the Court DENIES Dell’s motion. The motion will be decided Having considered the papers submitted by the 4 BACKGROUND 5 The ’821 patent, which is entitled, “Method and System for 6 Executing a Guided Parametric Search,” claims a “process for 7 identifying a single item from a family of items.” 8 Abstract. 9 parametric search to isolate a subfamily of items within a family ’821 patent, The invention is intended “to provide a guided United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 of items based on alternatives associated with each item.” 11 3:36-39. 12 continue to infringe the ’821 patent by, inter alia, making and 13 using parametric search systems, including web-based parametric 14 search systems, and performing parametric searches that infringe 15 the ’821 patent.” 16 Id. Kelora alleges that Defendants “have infringed and Am. Compl. ¶ 28. Kelora initiated this lawsuit in the Western District of 17 Wisconsin on November 8, 2010. 18 an amended complaint, which named twenty Defendants. 19 pursuant to various stipulations, Kelora’s claims against IDW, LLC; 20 Chelsea & Scott, Ltd. d/b/a One Step Ahead & Leaps and Bounds; 21 Buyonlinenow, Inc.; and Eastbay, Inc., have been dismissed. 22 (Docket Nos. 37, 64, 65 and 141.) 23 Mason Companies answered Kelora’s complaint and counterclaimed for 24 a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. 25 has answered Mason’s counterclaim. On November 23, 2010, Kelora filed However, On November 29, 2010, Defendant Kelora 26 On March 24, 2011, the Wisconsin district court granted 27 Defendants’ motions to transfer this action to this judicial 28 2 1 district. 2 dismiss Kelora’s complaint for failure to state a claim, leaving it 3 to this Court “to determine in the first instance whether the 4 complaint fails to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. 8 . . . .” 5 24, 2011, at 2. 6 and assigned to this Court, only Dell renewed its motion to 7 dismiss. The court did not rule on various Defendants’ motions to 8 9 Order of Mar. After the case was transferred into this district LEGAL STANDARD A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 11 Civ. P. 8(a). 12 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate 13 only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of 14 a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. 15 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 16 considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, 17 the court will take all material allegations as true and construe 18 them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 19 v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).1 20 principle is inapplicable to legal conclusions; “threadbare 21 recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 22 conclusory statements,” are not taken as true. Fed. R. When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule In NL Indus., Inc. However, this Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 23 1 27 “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a purely procedural question not pertaining to patent law.” McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the Federal Circuit applies the “the law of the regional circuit” to determine whether a district court properly granted a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 1356 (citing C & F Packing Co., Inc. v. IBP, Inc., 224 F.3d 1296, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 28 3 24 25 26 1 ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 2 U.S. at 555). 3 4 DISCUSSION Dell contends that Kelora has not plead sufficient facts to 5 support its claim for patent infringement. 6 its complaint conforms to Civil Form 18, provided in the Appendix 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that, under the Federal 8 Circuit’s decision in McZeal, it states a claim for patent 9 infringement. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Kelora contends that In McZeal, the Federal Circuit noted that Civil Form 16, Civil 11 Form 18’s predecessor, set forth “a sample complaint for patent 12 infringement” and contained the following elements: “1) an 13 allegation of jurisdiction; 2) a statement that the plaintiff owns 14 the patent; 3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the 15 patent ‘by making, selling, and using [the device] embodying the 16 patent’; 4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the defendant 17 notice of its infringement; and 5) a demand for an injunction and 18 damages.” 19 forms in the Appendix suffice under these rules and illustrate the 20 simplicity and brevity that these rules contemplate.”). 21 Kelora has alleged facts that satisfy these elements. 22 alleges that Dell infringed and continues to infringe the ’821 23 patent, which discloses an invention that can be used over the 24 Internet “as an electronic catalog, providing an electronic 25 alternative to updating and distributing product and/or service 26 information.” 27 alleged infringement arises through Dell’s use of “web-based 28 501 F.3d at 1356; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 (“The ’821 patent, 4:7-9. 4 Here, Kelora Kelora further pleads that the 1 parametric search systems.” 2 sufficient to provide Dell with notice as to what Kelora believes 3 to be the alleged infringing activity. 4 5 and Dell’s motion must be denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Dell’s motion to 8 dismiss. 9 held on May 31, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California This background is Accordingly, Kelora states a claim for patent infringement, 6 7 Am. Compl. ¶ 28. (Docket No. 213.) A case management conference will be IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: May 31, 2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5