Hulu LLC v. Rovi Corporation et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING 29 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge James Donato on 8/16/2017. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HULU LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

ROVI CORPORATION, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 29

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-02942-JD

In this declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of a patent, defendants have filed

12
13

a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 12(b)(1). Dkt. No. 29. The Court finds the motion to be suitable for decision without

15

oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and denies it.
DISCUSSION

16
17
18

I.

CASE OR CONTROVERSY FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Hulu’s first claim for relief is alleged under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

19

U.S.C. § 2201. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 6, 34-37. Hulu asks the Court to declare that it does not infringe any

20

valid claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,769, 775 (“the ’775 patent”). Id.

21

The defendants in this case are Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc. and TiVo Corporation.

22

Their main argument for dismissal of Hulu’s first claim is that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear

23

it for lack of a case or controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act or Article III of the United

24

States Constitution. See Dkt. No. 29 at 5. This is a unitary standard because the “actual

25

controversy” requirement in the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), simply

26

“reflect[s]” the case and controversy limitation of federal courts’ jurisdiction in Article III of the

27

Constitution. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 120-21 (2007).

28

The gravamen of defendants’ jurisdictional objection is that they did not make “any

1
2

specific threat of litigation regarding the ’775 Patent” to Hulu. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 41 at 2. That

3

argument is not well taken. The determinative inquiry is not whether the declaratory judgment

4

plaintiff faced a reasonable threat of imminent suit. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc.,

5

518 F.3d 897, 900-01 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the controlling test directs the Court to consider

6

“whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial

7

controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to

8

warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127 (internal citations

9

and quotations omitted).
The circumstances here establish that there is a justiciable controversy. Defendants do not

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

dispute that in July 2011, Rovi Corporation and Rovi Guide, Inc. (along with other associated

12

entities) filed suit against Hulu asserting that Hulu infringed three patents: the ’775 patent and

13

two others. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 19. In February 2013, the parties settled that lawsuit, and as part of the

14

settlement, entered into a patent license agreement. Id. ¶ 20; see also Dkt. No. 5-5, § 9 (providing

15

for dismissal of infringement action upon execution of the license agreement).1 Of the three

16

patents that were at issue in the litigation that led to the license agreement, only the ’775 patent

17

currently remains valid and unexpired. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 26. On February 21, 2017, the initial term of

18

the patent license agreement came to an end. Id. On March 14, 2017, defendants (on TiVo

19

letterhead) sent Hulu a letter reminding Hulu that the agreement had expired on February 21,

20

2017, and stating that Hulu “has been unlicensed since such date.” Dkt. No. 32-2, Ex. A. The

21

letter further stated: “Given that Hulu’s business has not substantially changed since entering into

22

the Agreement, the circumstances which required Hulu to be licensed under the Agreement

23

continue to exist today, and accordingly, it is necessary that Hulu renew its license.” Id. The

24

letter went on to state that the 90-day good faith negotiation period set forth in Section 6.4 of the

25

patent license agreement had commenced on February 22, 2017. That section of the license

26
27
28

1

The parties’ requests to seal this and other documents, Dkt. Nos. 5, 28, 31 and 40, are granted
except that the Court finds the March 14, 2017, notice of expiration letter is not sealable under
Local Rule 79-5.
2

1

agreement provides that the 90-day negotiation period is triggered when there is a “dispute, claim,

2

or controversy between the parties concerning patent infringement.” Dkt. No. 5-5, § 6.4. On top

3

of these facts, defendants acknowledge that they are highly active in their patent litigation

4

activities including with Hulu’s competitors, and the “Rovi defendants have previously been

5

adverse to Roku and Netflix in patent litigations, and currently are in litigation with Comcast,

6

ARRIS and Technicolor.” Dkt. No. 29 at 6-7.

7

This is more than enough to find a live case and controversy between the parties. In

8

MedImmune itself, where the Supreme Court found declaratory judgment jurisdiction to exist,

9

respondent Genentech had delivered to MedImmune “a letter expressing its belief that Synagis
was covered by the Cabilly II patent and its expectation that petitioner would pay royalties . . . .”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

549 U.S. at 121-22. Similarly, in Micron Technology, the Federal Circuit found the combination

12

of threatening letters to plaintiff and defendants’ “aggressive litigation strategy” to be sufficient to

13

support jurisdiction. 518 F.3d at 901-02. In Hewlett-Packard v. Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358,

14

1361-63 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit observed that MedImmune “certainly” lowered the

15

bar for determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction “in the licensor-licensee context,” and that

16

such jurisdiction “cannot be defeated simply by the stratagem of a correspondence that avoids the

17

magic words such as ‘litigation’ or ‘infringement.’” And in ABB Inc.v. Cooper Industries, LLC,

18

635 F.3d 1345, 1347-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit found “warning letters” similar to the

19

one here to be sufficient, and re-affirmed that “a specific threat of infringement litigation by the

20

patentee is not required to establish jurisdiction.”

21

No single fact in the record drives the finding of jurisdiction, and the Court does not

22

suggest that any one fact would have been sufficient by itself for that finding. Jurisdiction exists

23

because the totality of “the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a

24

substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy

25

and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127. The

26

Court further concludes that it is appropriate to exercise jurisdiction in this case as a matter of

27

discretion. See Micron Tech., 518 F.3d at 902 (discretionary declination of jurisdiction “rarely

28

proper” where hearing case would serve the objectives for which the Declaratory Judgment Act
3

1

was created). The Court consequently denies defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Hulu’s

2

declaratory judgment claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3

II.

REMAINING ARGUMENTS FOR DISMISSAL

4

The jurisdiction determination informs the conclusion that defendants’ other, more

5

subsidiary arguments must also be denied at this stage. Defendants argue that TiVo Corporation is

6

not properly named as a defendant here for any of plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 29 at 3-4. The

7

Court has some doubts about the propriety of this argument as a 12(b)(1) argument, but in any

8

event overrules it at this stage. Defendants’ March 14, 2017, warning letter to Hulu was written

9

on TiVo letterhead, and Section 10.2 of the patent license agreement provides that it will be
binding upon the parties’ “successors.” Defendants acknowledge that Rovi Corporation is now a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

wholly owned subsidiary of TiVo Corporation. Dkt. No. 29 at 2. Whether TiVo may get out of

12

this case at a later stage is of course an open question, but for now the Court finds there is enough

13

to deny its request for dismissal.

14

Defendants further request that the Court “decline to entertain Hulu’s state law [contract]

15

claims subsequent to the dismissal of Hulu’s declaratory judgment claim,” Dkt. No. 29 at 9, but

16

for obvious reasons that argument is now moot and the Court rejects it.

17

CONCLUSION

18

The motion to dismiss is denied. The case management conference will take place as

19

scheduled on August 24, 2017.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: August 16, 2017

22
23
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4