Netgear Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless Inc.

Filing 186

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 129 MOTION to Strike Paragraph 10 of Netgear, Inc.s Answer To Counterclaim. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 10/2/2013. (nmfn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NETGEAR, INC.,

)

Plaintiff,
v.
RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 10-999-SLR

)
)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 2nd day of October, 2013, having considered defendant's
motion to strike~ 10 of plaintiff's answer to the counterclaims (D.I. 129) and the papers
submitted therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Background.

Plaintiff Netgear Inc. ("plaintiff') filed a complaint alleging

patent infringement against Ruckus Wireless Inc. ("defendant") on November 19, 2010.
(D .I. 1) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 29, 2011, alleging infringement of
four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,812,531 ("the '531 patent"), 6,621,454 ("the '454
patent"), 7,263,143 ("the '143 patent"), and 5,507,035 ("the '035 patent"). (D.I. 28)
Defendant answered the amended complaint and counterclaimed for invalidity and noninfringement, on April12, 2012. (D. I. 38) Plaintiff answered the counterclaims on May
7, 2012. (D.I. 42)

On August 2, 2012, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint

adding allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,512,480 ("the '480 patent)

(collectively with the '531, '454, '143, '035 patents, the "patents-in-suit"). (D. I. 61) On
March, 28, 2013, defendant answered the second amended complaint and
counterclaimed for invalidity and non-infringement. (D. I. 116) On April 15, 2013,
plaintiff answered the counterclaims. (D.I. 118) The court has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
2. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in San
Jose, California. (D. I. 61 at 1{2) Plaintiff owns the patents-in-suit, including the rights to
sue and recover for infringement. (ld. at 1{1{9, 17, 25, 32, 41) Defendant is a Delaware
corporation with a principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. (D.I. 116 at 1{8)
Defendant designs, manufactures, and markets wireless local area network (WLAN)
systems and products throughout the United States and the world. (ld. at 9)
3. Standard. Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
"[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). "A decision to
grant or deny a motion to strike a pleading is vested in the trial court's discretion."
Simmons v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 788 F. Supp. 2d 404, 407 (W.O. Pa. 2011)
(citing Snare & Triest v. Friedman, 169 F. 1, 6 (3d Cir. 1909); BJC Health System v.
Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908, 917 (8th Cir. 2007)). "When ruling on a motion to
strike, the [c]ourt must construe all facts in favor of the nonmoving party and deny the
motion if the defense is sufficient under law." Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Aruba Networks,
Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 353, 356 (D. Del. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2

4. "As a general matter, motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are disfavored."

Fesnak & Assocs., LLP v. U.S. Bank Nat'/ Ass'n, 722 F. Supp. 2d 496, 502 (D. Del.
201 0). "The purpose of a motion to strike is to clean up the pleadings, streamline
litigation, and avoid unnecessary forays into immaterial matters." Mcinerney v. Moyer

Lumber and Hardware, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 393, 402 (E. D. Pa. 2002) (citing Gar/anger
v. Verbeke, 223 F. Supp. 2d 596, 609 (D. N.J. 2002)). "[E]ven where the challenged
material is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, a motion to strike should
not be granted unless the presence of the surplusage will prejudice the adverse party."

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Aruba Networks, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 353, 359 (D. Del. 2009)
(internal quotations omitted). '"Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or
important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded."' Delaware

Health Care, Inc. v. MCD Holding Co., 893 F. Supp. 1279, 1291-1292 (D. Del. 1995)
(quoting 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§
1382, at 706-07 (2d ed.1990)). '"Impertinent matter consists of statements that do not
pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question."' /d. at 1292.
5. Discussion. Defendant's counterclaim contains a description of the parties
and recites:
9. Ruckus designs, manufactures, and markets Smart Wi-Fi
products and Smart Wireless LAN systems. Ruckus sells
Smart Wi-Fi products and Smart Wireless LAN systems (i.e.,
Smart Wi-Fi Technology) throughout the United States and
the world.
10. Smart Wi-Fi Technology uses an intelligent, high-gain
directional antenna system and quality of service
technologies to extend the range of Wi-Fi signals and
automatically adapt to environmental changes.

3

6. Plaintiff responded to

~

10 with a litany of "admissions" which go far beyond

defendant's description of "Smart Wi-Fi Technology:"
10. NETGEAR admits that Ruckus uses terminology such as
"Smart Wi-Fi" to describe its products. NETGEAR admits
that Ruckus's accused products include directional antenna
systems that are intelligently directed to adapt to periodic
interference. NETGEAR further admits that Ruckus's
accused products include antenna beam selection and
adaptive polarization diversity techniques which direct
changes responsive to monitoring RF data transmission
frequencies, having a plurality of polarizations, for optimal
conditions for RF data transmissions. NETGEAR also
admits that Ruckus's accused products include a statistically
directed automatic gain control circuit for directing receiver
gain to mitigate effects of certain RF interference.
NETGEAR admits that Ruckus's accused products include
antenna diversity techniques at both ends of the links
between different access points ("APs"}, for example,
including antenna diversity at root wireless APs (base
stations) and associated wireless APs (mobile stations).
NETGEAR admits that Ruckus has explained, for example,
that its wireless products and systems implement a "Wi-Fi
Smart Antenna implementation" which "enables consistent
high performance multimedia support by continuously
ranking the antenna configurations for each receiving device
and reconfiguring itself in real-time to bypass interference
and physical barriers. Highly sensitive antenna elements
provide 9dBi of antenna gain, 17dB of interference rejection
and offer the industry's most sensitive Wi-Fi receiving
capabilities (up to -98dBm)." NETGEAR further admits that
Ruckus has explained, for example, that its "smart antenna
is controlled by expert system software that automatically
reconfigures the antenna array on a per packet basis,
selecting the best performing and highest quality signal path
and optimum data rate for each receiving device." Except as
admitted herein, in light of the generic nature of Ruckus'
allegations, NETGEAR lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this
paragraph.
(0.1. 118

at~

10)

7. Plaintiff's answer includes material that was the subject of motions for

4

summary judgment and claim construction. For instance, although the parties
disagreed over whether the term "optimal conditions" for RF data transmissions
disclosed in claim 1 of the '480 patent could be construed, plaintiff asserted that
defendant's "accused products ... include antenna beam selection ... which direct
changes ... for optimal conditions for RF data transmissions." The parties also argued
over whether the '454 patent (directed to mitigating interference by gathering statistical
information about the duration and timing of the interference) is valid and/or infringed,
yet plaintiff "admit[ted] that [defendant's] accused products include a statistically
directed automatic gain control circuit for directing receiver gain to mitigate effects of
certain RF interference." 1
8. Rule 8(b) calls for a party to "admit or deny the allegations asserted against it
by an opposing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1 )(B). Plaintiff cannot legitimately argue
that the material contained in

~

10 is not improper and goes far beyond the scope of

defendant's allegation. Plaintiff's "admissions" contain issues of material fact over
which the parties' experts disagree. To allow plaintiff's answer to stand as written would
cause prejudice to defendant by misrepresenting the record. Plaintiff remains free to
present its evidence and arguments at trial, consistent with the court's summary
judgment decision.
9. Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion to

1

strike~

10 of

Piaintiff also "quoted [defendant's] own documents where [defendant] itself
described the Smart Wi-Fi technology," but did not cite the documents in either its
answer to the counterclaims or answering brief. (0.1. 146 at 4)

5

plaintiff's answer to the counterclaims (0.1. 129) is granted.

6