Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER GRANTING 51 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/5/2024. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

COOPERATIVE ENTERTAINMENT,
INC.,

9

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
Re: Dkt. No. 51

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:20-cv-07273-EJD

KOLLECTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

12

Defendant.

13

Plaintiff, Cooperative Entertainment, Inc., (“CEI”) brings this suit against Defendant,

14

Kollective Technology, Inc., (“Kollective”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 (“the

15

’452 Patent”). Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 49. Before the Court is Kollective’s

16

motion to dismiss CEI’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for failure to state a claim. Mot. to

17

Dismiss (“MTD”), ECF No. 51. CEI filed an opposition, and Kollective filed a reply. Opp’n,

18

ECF No. 55; Reply, ECF No. 56.

19
20

Having carefully considered the Parties’ moving papers, the Court finds this motion
suitable for consideration without oral argument pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court finds that

21

CEI has failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s prior Order granting Kollective’s

22

motion to dismiss CEI’s First Amended Complaint (“Prior Order”). Order Granting Mot. to

23

Dismiss (“Prior Order”), ECF No. 47. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

24

Kollective’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

25
26
27
28

I.

BACKGROUND
This is Kollective’s third motion to dismiss. See ECF Nos. 19, 41. In the interest of

brevity, the Court will only summarize those facts relevant to this motion.
Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

CEI is the owner of the ’452 Patent, entitled “Systems and Methods for Dynamic

2

Networked Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution.” SAC, Ex. B (“’452 Patent”). The ’452 Patent

3

relates to systems and methods of structuring a peer-to-peer (“P2P”) dynamic network for

4

distributing large files. Id. ¶ 16. It claims methods and systems for a network in which content

5

distribution occurs “outside controlled networks and/or content distribution networks (CDNs).”

6

Id. ¶ 23. It does this with dynamic P2P networks comprising of “peer nodes,” i.e., nodes

7

consuming the same content contemporaneously, that transmit content directly to each other

8

instead of receiving content from the CDN. Id. ¶¶ 22, 23. To facilitate content distribution, the

9

claimed P2P networks segment content combining several unconventional techniques, including

10

“CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN and the P2P server manager, dynamic feedback from

11

peers reporting traffic rates between individual peer and its neighbors, round-robin, other server

12

side scheduling/resource allocation techniques, and combinations thereof.” Id. ¶ 35.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The ’452 Patent includes two independent claims, claims 1 and 5, from which all other
claims depend. Claim 1 claims:
1. A system for virtualized computing peer-based content sharing
comprising:
at least one content delivery server computer constructed and
configured for electrical connection and communication via
at least one communications network; and
at least one peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network including a
multiplicity of peer nodes, wherein the multiplicity of peer
nodes consume the same content within a predetermined
time, wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes are constructed
and configured for electronic communication over the at
least one P2P dynamic network, wherein the at least one
P2P dynamic network is based on at least one trace
route; wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes is distributed
outside controlled networks and/or content distribution
networks (CDNs) that are included within the at least one
communications network;

26

wherein the at least one content delivery server computer is operable
to store viewer information, check content request, use the
trace route to segment requested content, find peers, and
return client-block pairs;

27

wherein distribution of P2P content delivery over the at least one

25

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
2

1
2
3
4

P2P dynamic network is based on content segmentation;
wherein content segmentation is based on CDN address resolution,
trace route to CDN and P2P server manager, dynamic
feedback from peers reporting traffic rates between
individual peer and its neighbors, round-robin and other
server side scheduling/resource allocation techniques.
’452 Patent at 10:25–49 (emphasis added).

5
Claim 5 is a method claim that recites:
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

5. A method for virtualized computing peer-based content sharing
comprising the steps of:
providing at least one content delivery server computer constructed
and configured for electrical connection and communication
via at least one communications network;
providing at least one peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network including
a multiplicity of peer nodes constructed and configured for
electronic communication over the at least one P2P dynamic
network, wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes consume the
same content within a predetermined time, wherein the at
least one P2P dynamic network is based on at least one
trace route, wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes is
distributed outside controlled networks and/or content
distribution networks (CDNs) that are included within the at
least one communications network;
the at least one content delivery server computer receiving at least
one content request from a client;
the at least one content delivery server computer segmenting
requested content based on CDN address resolution, trace
route to CDN and the P2P server manager, dynamic
feedback from peers reporting traffic rates between
individual peer and its neighbors, round-robin, and other
server side scheduling/resource allocation techniques;
automatically identifying at least one peer node having at least one
segment of the requested content in close network proximity
to the client; and
at least one peer node most proximal to the client sharing the at least
one segment of the requested content.

24
Id. at 10:62–67, 11:1–26 (emphasis added).
25
Using a trace route in combination with the other claimed techniques to segment data is
26

fundamental to the ’452 Patent. In the SAC, CEI states that “[t]he ’452 patent claims all require

27
28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
3

1

segmenting the digital content according to the trace routes.” SAC ¶ 20. The SAC also alleges

2

that claiming segmentation based on a trace route was one reason why the U.S. Patent Office

3

allowed the ’452 Patent claims to issue over the prior art. See, e.g., SAC ¶ 11 (“The novelty of the

4

’452 patent, the patentee argued to the U.S. Patent Office, was that the claims use these means of

5

testing to further segment the actual content being delivered: ‘Specifically, traceroute as a type of

6

network traffic test in Weller does not suggest or indicate using trace route to segment requested

7

content.’”).

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Upon appeal of the Court’s prior Order dismissing the complaint under Section 101, CEI
also repeatedly argued that the ’452 Patent requires a trace route to be used as part of the

10

segmentation process. See, e.g., MTD, Ex. 3, Appeal Transcript at 8:17–9:2 (Judge Moore:

11

“[Y]ou have required the trace route to be used as part of the segmentation process; is that

12

correct?” Ms. Andy: “That’s correct, Your Honor.”), 11:23–13:4 (Judge Stark: “So, does that still

13

mean it has to use trace routes?” Ms. Andy: “Yes, it does because the ‘and’ is prior to the trace

14

routes. It says: content segmentation is based on CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN, and

15

P2P server; and these other things.”). The Federal Circuit presumably relied on these

16

representations when it held that using a trace route to segment content is one of the two identified

17

inventive concepts of the ’452 Patent. See Coop. Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127,

18

133–36 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also SAC ¶ 14 (“The U.S. Patent Office allowed the ’452 Patent

19

claims because the claims contained the complete engineering required to deliver content through

20

a P2P network segmented in [a] novel way.”).

21

CEI alleges that Kollective’s product, SD ECDN (“Accused Product”), infringes on the

22

’452 Patent. SAC ¶ 28. The Accused Product is essentially a software that uses P2P technology

23

to share content between devices in a large company. See SAC ¶¶ 28–46. CEI asserts that, when

24

used in conjunction with Microsoft Teams software, the Accused Product infringes claims 1, 2, 3,

25

and 5. Id.

26

The Court granted Kollective’s first motion to dismiss on October 24, 2023, finding that

27

CEI failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim for patent infringement because CEI did not

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

allege that the Accused Product segments content based on a trace route. Prior Order 7–8. While

2

the Court focused much of its analysis on CEI’s failure to allege that the Accused Product

3

segments content as an initial matter, the Court also found deficiencies in CEI’s failure to allege

4

that the Accused Product segments it content based on a trace route. Id. (“The Court cannot find

5

any facts in CEI’s complaint to support its allegation that Kollective facilitates content distribution

6

by segmenting the content, apart from one conclusory sentence . . . . CEI attempts to support its

7

allegation that SD ECDN uses trace routes to segment content by quoting, without explanation,

8

[an excerpt] from Kollective’s website . . . . However, the Court interprets this quote at this stage

9

as stating that Kollective uses traceroutes to gather information, not to segment content. In the

10

absence of any facts to suggest that SD ECDN performs one of the central functions of the ’452

11

Patent, the Court must dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.”).
In response to the Court’s Prior Order, CEI amended its complaint by adding two

12
13

paragraphs defining conventional segmentation, SAC ¶¶ 12, 13, and referring back to those

14

paragraphs in two instances to allege that the Accused Product “relies on conventional protocols

15

that segment video files,” id. ¶¶ 35, 43.

16

On November 11, 2023, Kollective filed its third motion to dismiss in this case, arguing

17

that CEI failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s Prior Order, as well as failed to

18

allege facts showing that the Accused Product uses various other techniques claimed in the ’452

19

Patent. See MTD.

20

II.

21

LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

22

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A defendant may move to dismiss a

23

complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). When

24

deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must generally accept

25

as true all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). While

26

a plaintiff need not offer detailed factual allegations to meet this standard, she is required to offer

27

“sufficient factual matter . . . ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
5

1

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court must construe the

2

alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bd. of

3

Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[The court] must accept as true

4

all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the

5

nonmoving party.”). However, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched

6

as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
If the court concludes that a 12(b)(6) motion should be granted, the “court should grant

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the

9

pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

10

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation omitted).

11

III.

DISCUSSION

12

In its Prior Order, the Court held that CEI failed to allege that the Accused Product

13

segments content based on a trace route.1 The SAC does not cure this deficiency. First, while the

14

SAC includes additional facts defining segmentation and alleging upon information and belief that

15

the Accused Product segments content, the SAC failed to allege that the Accused Product

16

segments content based on a trace route. Second, CEI alleges additional facts that are inconsistent

17

with and contradict CEI’s infringement theory, thereby effectively “plead[ing] itself out of court.”

18

Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

19

A.

20

CEI wholly failed to include any additional facts which would indicate that the Accused

Failure to Plausibly Allege Segmentation Based on Trace Routes

21

Product segments content based on a trace route. The only instance where trace routes are

22

discussed in the SAC outside of descriptions of the ’452 Patent is in the following quote from

23

Kollective’s website, which remains unchanged from the prior complaint: “The agents in the mesh

24
25
26
27
28

CEI erroneously presumes that, because the Court rested its holding on CEI’s failure to allege
facts to show that the Accused Product segments content based on a trace route, the Court found
the remainder of the complaint sufficiently plead. By declining to address Kollective’s remaining
arguments, the Court did not, as CEI states, “reject[] over 20 of Kollective’s arguments.” Opp’n
1. Finding dismissal warranted on one ground, the Court exercised its discretion to not address
Kollective’s remaining arguments.
Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
6
1

1

are constantly aware of their network surroundings. Utilizing pings and traceroutes, they gather

2

key information about the surrounding network by monitoring the location of other agents and

3

constantly gauging how local area links are performing.” SAC ¶¶ 32, 44 (emphasis added). CEI

4

argues in its opposition that the “mesh” is the content delivery system; therefore, the quote reveals

5

that the content delivery system uses trace routes. Opp’n 4. However, the Court already

6

addressed this exact quote in its Prior Order:

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CEI attempts to support its allegation that SD ECDN uses trace routes
to segment content by quoting, without explanation, the following
from Kollective’s website: “Utilizing pings and traceroutes, [the
agents in the mesh] gather key information about the surrounding
network by monitoring the location of other agents and constantly
gauging how local area links are performing.” Compl. ¶¶ 29, 39.
However, the Court interprets this quote at this stage as stating that
Kollective uses traceroutes to gather information, not to segment
content.

12

Prior Order 7 (emphasis in original). The Court need not revisit this argument here. CEI has

13

included no additional facts in the SAC to address the Court’s finding, nor any arguments in its

14

opposition urging the Court to interpret this quote any differently.

15

The remainder of CEI’s opposition lends little aid to the Court’s analysis. As the Court

16

noted in its Prior Order, CEI’s various amended complaints have displayed the same pattern of

17

quoting large portions from Kollective’s website, including quoting entire pages, with little to no

18

explanation of how the language shows that the Accused Product infringes on the ’452 Patent.

19

Prior Order 7–8. Now this pattern is not only reflected in the SAC, but also in CEI’s opposition.

20

CEI has specifically dedicated two pages to arguing that the Accused Product segments content

21

based on a trace route. See Opp’n 8–9. Yet those two pages consist almost entirely of paragraphs

22

quoted from Kollective’s website, which were all included in the prior complaint, as well as

23

paragraphs quoted from the SAC. CEI submits only three sentences of explanation among these

24

two pages: “The asserted claims require segmentation based on a trace route . . . . [Kollective’s]

25

white paper refers to the distribution network as a mesh that is based on a traceroute . . . .

26

Kollective admits to segmenting and distributing the content based on network conditions.” Id. at

27

8. Notably absent from those three sentences is any allegation that, or explanation how, the

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Accused Product segments content based on a trace route, no less any facts to support that

2

allegation.

3

B.

4

To the contrary, the SAC specifically alleges that the Accused Product “relies on

5

conventional protocols that segment video files.” SAC ¶ 35 (emphasis added). Yet, segmenting

6

content based on a trace route is precisely the unconventional segmentation technique claimed in

7

the ’452 Patent. Indeed, upon appeal, the Federal Circuit specifically noted CEI’s argument that

8

using a trace route to segment content “was not well-understood, routine, or conventional.”

9

Cooperative, 50 F. 4th at 131 (“[A]llegations [in CEI’s First Amended Complaint] mirror the

10

applicant's statements in the prosecution history and the patent's specification that using trace

11

routes in segmenting content was inventive and improves efficiency, redundancy, and reliability of

12

content delivery computer network systems.”).

13

Factual Allegations Inconsistent with Infringement Theory

The Federal Circuit addressed a similar situation in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4

14

F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In Bot8, the patent at issue generally describes an authentication

15

mechanism for video games, whereby both the game program and the authentication program

16

must be stored on the same memory board that is separate from the memory motherboard. Id. at

17

1354. However, the patent owner alleged that the accused product had the authentication

18

program, operating system, and games all stored on a flash drive located in the motherboard. Id.

19

The court found that the complaint alleged away from infringement by asserting that the

20

authentication program is stored on the motherboard, which is inconsistent with the infringement

21

theory that requires the authentication program to be stored on a board separate from the

22

motherboard. Id. The court held that, where “the factual allegations are actually inconsistent with

23

and contradict infringement, they are [] insufficient to state a plausible claim.” Id.

24

So too here, by specifically alleging that the Accused Product relies on conventional

25

protocols to segment content, CEI has pled away from its theory that the Accused Product

26

infringes on the claimed unconventional method of segmenting content based on a trace route. As

27

the Federal Circuit observed, “while a plaintiff's pleading obligations are not onerous, it is possible

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
8

1

that, in pleading its claims, a plaintiff may find it has pleaded itself out of court.” Id.
***

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2
3

Because the SAC still fails to allege facts showing that the Accused Product segments

4

content based on a trace route, and instead includes facts that contradict its own infringement

5

theory, the Court finds that CEI has once again failed to allege facts sufficient to plead a claim of

6

patent infringement. As such, the Court finds it unnecessary to reach Kollective’s remaining

7

arguments. Kollective’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED without leave to amend.

8

Given that CEI was unable to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s Prior Order, the Court

9

finds that further amendment would be futile. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“[A] district court

10

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it

11

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”).

12

IV.

13
14
15
16

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Kollective’s motion to dismiss without

leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2024

17
18
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-07273-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
9