Talon Research, LLC v. Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS' 15 MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

TALON RESEARCH, LLC,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 11-05058 CW
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.;
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

11
Defendants Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. and Hynix
12
13

Semiconductor Inc. move to dismiss Plaintiff Talon Research, LLC's

14

indirect infringement claims.1

15

submissions, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss.

16
17
18

Having considered the parties’

LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Fed. R.

19
Civ. P. 8(a).

On a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to

20
21

state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint

22

does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable

23

claim and the grounds on which it rests.

24

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Bell Atl. Corp. v.

25
26
27
28

1

The two theories of liability for indirect infringement
claims are: (1) induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and
(2) contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Halton
Co. v. Streivor, Inc., 2010 WL 2077203 (N.D. Cal.).

DISCUSSION

1
2

Induced infringement claims require a showing of (1) direct

3

infringement; and (2) the alleged infringer's knowledge of and

4

intent to induce infringement.

5

ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks

Mfrs. Co., Ltd., 501 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

6
Contributory infringement claims require a showing of (1) direct
7
8
9

infringement; 2) the alleged infringer's knowledge of the patent;
and 3) a component with no substantial noninfringing uses that is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

a material part of the invention.

11

Patent Licensing, LLC, 2011 WL 4915847, at *5 n.4 (N.D. Cal.).

12

Talon sufficiently alleges induced infringement claims by

13

pleading (1) direct infringement by Defendants' customers; and

14

Proofpoint, Inc. v. InNova

(2) Defendants' knowledge of and intent to induce infringement, as

15
inferred from the infringement notices Talon sent to Defendants.
16
17

Talon sufficiently alleges contributory infringement claims by

18

pleading (1) direct infringement by Defendants' customers;

19

(2) Defendants' knowledge of Talon's patents, inferred from the

20

infringement notices; and (3) that Defendants' E2NAND memory

21

products and eMMC compliant controllers are the subject products

22

of Talon's claims.

23
CONCLUSION
24
25
26
27
28

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/9/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
2