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