SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net International, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
SAP AMERICA, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,

No. C 13-1248 PJH

8
v.
9
PI-NET INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Defendant.
_______________________________/
Defendant’s motion to dismiss came on for hearing before this court on July 24,

13

2013. Plaintiff SAP America, Inc. (“plaintiff”) appeared through its counsel, Tharan Lanier

14

and Kyle Barrett. Defendant Pi-Net International, Inc. (“defendant”) appeared through its

15

counsel, Robert Yorio. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and

16

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

17

appearing, the court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendant’s motion for

18

the reasons stated at the hearing and as follows.

19

In its motion, defendant argues that plaintiff’s complaint does not establish that this

20

court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment

21

of invalidity for three of defendant’s patents, but its complaint alleges only that defendant

22

“has sued customers of SAP for allegedly infringing the patents-in-suit,” and “has

23

contended that software supplied by SAP . . . infringes the patents-in-suit.” Complaint, ¶ 1.

24

The complaint does not identify any specific SAP customer or specific SAP product that

25

has been accused of infringement by defendant. Accordingly, to the extent that defendant

26

seeks an identification of a specific customer and specific product accused of infringement,

27

the court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended

28

complaint must identify at least one customer and at least one product of SAP’s that has

1

been accused of infringement by defendant. However, the complaint need not provide an

2

exhaustive list of all customers and products accused of infringement, and defendant’s

3

motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks any such exhaustive list. Plaintiff shall have

4

until August 21, 2013 to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order, and

5

defendant shall have until September 11, 2013 to answer or otherwise respond to the

6

complaint.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2