Yufa v. Particle Measuring Systems, Inc.

Filing 122

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 118 Motion to Dismiss. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2019: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (kcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

9
10
11

Case No. 09-cv-01388-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

PARTICLE MEASURING SYSTEMS,
INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 118

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13
14

Before the court is defendant Particle Measuring Systems, Inc.’s (“PMS”) motion to

15

dismiss. Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on February 23, 2019. Dkt. No. 118. Pro

16

se plaintiff Aleksandr L. Yufa did not file an opposition, and the deadline to do so has now

17

passed. Similarly, PMS did not file a reply by its deadline to do so. The court finds this

18

matter suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read PMS’ motion, and

19

carefully considered the relevant arguments and legal authority, and good cause

20

appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss.

21
22
23

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint accuses PMS of infringing on U.S. Patent No.
6,346,983 (“the ’983 Patent” or the “patent-in-suit”). Dkt. No. 59.
The ’983 Patent, as well as other patents previously owned by Yufa, was also the

24

subject of a parallel infringement-related litigation in Yufa v. TSI, 09-1315 KAW (N.D.

25

Cal.) (henceforth, “TSI”), presided over by Magistrate Judge Westmore. In that action,

26

the defendant, TSI, eventually obtained a monetary judgment against Yufa. TSI, Dkt.

27

Nos. 176-177, 205. After additional litigation, Judge Westmore appointed a receiver and

28

compelled Yufa to assign seven of his patents, including the patent-in-suit, to the

1

receiver, so that the patents could be sold to satisfy TSI’s judgment against Yufa. TSI,

2

Dkt. Nos. 240, 295, 299. On December 20, 2018, TSI was the winning bidder in the

3

receiver-conducted auction. TSI, Dkt. No. 303 ¶ 9. On February 20, 2019, Judge

4

Westmore entered an order confirming the sale and assignment of the patents, including

5

the patent-in-suit, to TSI. TSI, Dkt. No. 305. The TSI court specifically noted that Yufa

6

“did not oppose the confirmation of the [r]eceiver’s sale of the patents” or any other

7

substantive part of the motion. See TSI, Dkt. Nos. 304-05.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The court had previously stayed this action pending the TSI court’s resolution of
TSI’s motion to confirm the receiver’s sale of the patents. Dkt. No. 117. As that motion is
now resolved, the court hereby LIFTS the stay entered on February 4, 2019.
PMS now moves to dismiss this suit with prejudice, arguing that because Yufa no
longer owns the patent-in-suit, he cannot maintain this infringement action.
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges the court's

14

jurisdiction to hear a case. Standing challenges can be “facial” or “factual.” White v. Lee,

15

227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). “In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the

16

allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal

17

jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the

18

allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for

19

Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). When challenged, the party

20

opposing the motion bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. A10 Networks, Inc. v.

21

Brocade Commcn's Sys., Inc., No. 11–CV–05493, 2012 WL 1932878, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

22

May 29, 2012).

23

“To establish standing under Article III, a plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, that

24

it has suffered an injury in fact. Constitutional injury in fact occurs when a party infringes

25

a patent in violation of a party's exclusionary rights.” Drone Techs., Inc. v. Parrot S.A.,

26

838 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (omitting quotation marks). That is, “[c]onstitutional

27

standing in a patent case generally requires ownership of the patent.” Seoul Laser

28

Dieboard Sys. Co. v. Serviform, S.r.l., 957 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2013).
2

1

Here, it is undisputed that Yufa no longer owns the patent-in-suit. And Yufa has

2

not asserted or provided any other reason why he believes he retains some exclusionary

3

right derived from the patent-in-suit. Indeed, any such assertion would be contrary to

4

Judge Westmore’s order granting TSI’s motion to confirm the sale of the patents to TSI—

5

a motion Yufa did not oppose. See TSI, Dkt. No. 305 (“The [r]eciever’s sale of” the ’983

6

Patent “including the rights to all past damages . . . is hereby confirmed;” “[t]he [r]eceiver

7

shall assign all rights, title, and interest” in the ’983 Patent “to TSI”). Accordingly,

8

because Yufa does not own the patent-in-suit and retains no continuing interest in that

9

patent, he has not suffered an injury in fact and lacks constitutional standing to maintain

10

this patent infringement action.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS PMS’ motion to dismiss and

12

DISMISSES this action with prejudice because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2019

15
16

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3