Pragmatus AV LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.

Filing 153

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION -- granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Dismiss ; adopting 61 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 5/24/13. (ntl)

Download PDF
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE I PRAGMATUS AV, LLC, • Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 11-902-LPS-CJB YAHOO! INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") (D.I. 61) dated November 13, 2012 recommending that the Court deny Defendant Yahoo! Inc.'s ("Yahoo!" or "Defendant") Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (the "Motion") as it pertains to PlaintiffPragmatus AV, LLC's ("Pragmatus" or "Plaintiff') direct infringement claim and grant Defendant's Motion as it pertains to Plaintiffs indirect infringement claims; WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report on November 30, 2012 (D.I. 74) ("Objections"); WHEREAS, Defendant responded to the Objections on December 17,2012 (D.I. 80); WHEREAS, the Court has considered the Motion de novo, as it presents case-dispositive issues, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Objections are OVERRULED. 1 I f 2. Magistrate Judge Burke's Report is ADOPTED. 3. Yahoo!'s Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 44) is DENIED with respect to direct infringement and GRANTED with respect to induced infringement and contributory infringement. 4. Yahoo! moved to dismiss Pragmatus' First Amended Complaint ("'FAC") (D.I. 43) for failure to state a claim with respect to: (1) direct infringement; (2) induced infringement; and (3) contributory infringement. Judge Burke's Report recommends that the Court deny Yahoo's Motion with respect to direct infringement but grant the Motion with respect to both induced infringement and contributory infringement. (See Report at 31) Pragmatus objects only to the dismissal of its induced infringement claim. 5. Pragmatus contends that the Report is wrong because: (1) Pragmatus adequately pled knowledge ofthe infringing acts; and (2) specific intent can be pled generally or inferred from knowledge of infringement. (See D.I. 74) Pragmatus also contends that the induced infringement claim is proper with respect to post-filing activities. a. With respect to knowledge of infringing acts, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain facts "'plausibly showing that [the alleged indirect infringer] knew that the [direct infringer's] acts constituted infringement." In re Bill ofLading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The FAC alleges only that "'Pragmatus has provided Yahoo! written notice of its infringement." (D.I. 43 at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Other than identifying the direct infringers as "at least users of Yahoo! Messenger," the FA C contains no facts to suggest that Yahoo! knew that those users infringed or knew how those users infringed the asserted patents. J I I l 2 b. With respect to intent, the complaint must contain facts "plausibly showing that [the alleged indirect infringer] specifically intended [the direct infringers] to infringe [the patent-at-issue]." In re Bill ofLading, 681 F.3d at 1339. While intent maybe pled generally, the Court must have some factual basis from which to draw an inference of intent. In this case, the F AC does not even use the word "intent," let alone allege any facts to support an inference that Yahoo! specifically intended or encouraged its users to infringe. For instance, the FAC does not provide any allegations as to the relationship between Yahoo! and users ofthe accused Yahoo! Messenger product. With respect to Pragmatus' contention that intent can be inferred because Yahoo! has "continued the acts which induced infringement after gaining knowledge of infringement" (D.I. 74 at 3), the cases Pragmatus relies on address not intent but, instead, whether filing a complaint may satisfy the knowledge requirement for pleading indirect infringement. See, e.g., Soft View LLC v. Apple Inc., 2012 WL 3061027, at *7 (D. Del. July 26, 2012); Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559, 565 (D. Del. 2012). 6. Pragmatus seeks leave to file a second amended complaint. (D.I. 74 at 4) Yahoo! objects, but offers no substantive reasons for its opposition. (D.I. 80 at 4) Amendment should be allowed "whenjustice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). It is within the discretion ofthe Court to grant leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Court will 3 i I l exercise its discretion and grant Pragmatus leave to file a second amended complaint. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 21 days from the date ofthis Order. Failure to file an amended complaint within this time frame will result in dismissal of the induced infringement 1 I claims with prejudice. May24, 2013 Wilmington, Delaware TES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

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?