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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?