Network Congestion Solutions LLC v. AT&T Inc., et al.

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 6/4/2015. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-00894-SLR et al.(fms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NETWORK CONGESTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT~~T

INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

NETWORK CONGESTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
Defendant.
NETWORK CONGESTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ATLANTIC BROADBAND GROUP LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 14-894-SLR

Civ. No.

14-89~i-SLR

Civ. No. 14-896-SLR

NE1WORK CONGESTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
T-MOBILE US INC.,
Defendant.
NE1WORK CONGESTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CELLULAR
CORPORATION
Defendant.
NE1WORK CONGESTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 14-902-SLR

Civ. No.

14-90~~-SLR

Civ. No. 14-904-SLR

MEMORANDUM
At Wilmington this~ day of June, 2015, having reviewed defendants' motions 1
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (D.I. 11 ), 2 and the papers filed in

1

The corresponding motions are: Civ. No. 14-895, D.I. 10; Civ. No. 14-896, D.I. 9; Civ.
No. 14-897, D.I. 9; Civ. No. 14-898, D.I. 13; Civ. No. 14-899, D.I. 9; Civ. No. ·14-901, D.I.
10; Civ. No. 14-902, D.I. 9; Civ. No. 14-903, D.I. 10; Civ. No. 14-904, D.I. 11.

connection therewith; defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's claims of patent
infringement shall be denied, consistent with the reasons that follow:
1. Background. On July 9, 2014, plaintiff Network Congestion Solutions, LLC
("plaintiff'') filed the following actions against defendants AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc.
("AT&T") (D.I. 1); AT&T Mobility LLC ("Mobility") (Civ. No. 14-895, D.I. 1); Atlantic
Broadband Group, LLC ("Atlantic") (Civ. No. 14-896, D.I. 1); Cable One Inc. ("Cable
One") (Civ. No. 14-897, D.I. 1); CSC Holdings, LLC ("CSC") (Civ. No. 14-898, D.I. 1);
Centurylink Communications, LLC ("Centurylink") (Civ. No. 14-899, D.I. 1); Sprint
Corporation ("Sprint") (Civ. No. 14-901, D.I. 1); T-Mobile US Inc. ("T-Mobile") (Civ. No.
14-902, D.I. 1); United States Cellular Corp. ("USCC") (Civ. No. 14-903, D.I. 1); and
WideOpenWest Finance, LLC ("WOW") (Civ. No. 14-904, D.I. 1) (colleictively,
"defendants"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,826,620

("the~

'620 patent").

The '620 patent is drawn to a "Network Congestion Control System and Method." (D.I.
1, 1} 9) The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
2. Standard. A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests
the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations. Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007); Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). A complaint must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Consistent with the Supreme Court's rulin9s in

Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Third Circuit requires a two-

2

All references are to Civ. No. 14-894 unless otherwise indicated.

2

part analysis when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Edwards v. A.H. Come/I & Son,

Inc., 610 F.3d 217, 219 (3d Cir. 2010); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 5 78
1

F.~ld

203, 210

(3d Cir. 2009). First, a court should separate the factual and legal elements of a claim,
accepting the facts and disregarding the legal conclusions. Fowler, 578 F.3d. at 21011. Second, a court should determine whether the remaining well-pied facts sufficiently
show that the plaintiff "has a 'plausible claim for relief."' Id. at 211 (quoting lqbal, 556
U.S. at 679). As part of the analysis, a court must accept all well-pleaded factual
allegations in the complaint as true, and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536
U.S. 403, 406 (2002); Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 23·1 (3d Cir. 2008).
In this regard, a court may consider the pleadings, public record, orders, exhibits
attached to the complaint, and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference.

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makar Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Oshi\1er v. Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384-85 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994).
3. The court's determination is not whether the non-moving party "will ultimately
prevail" but whether that party is "entitled to offer evidence to support the claims."

United States ex rel. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 295, 302 (3d Cir.
2011 ). This "does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage," but
instead "simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence of [the necessary element]." Phillips, 515 F.3d at ~~34 (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The court's analysis is a context-specific task requiring the
court "to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64.

3

4. Analysis. At the pleading stage in a patent case, the Federal Circuit has held
that the information required by Federal Rule Civil Procedure Form 18 constitutes
adequate notice to pass the Twombly standard. See Mczeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501
F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Form 18 uses, for example, an allegation that
defendant infringes by "making, selling, and using electric motors that embody the
patented invention," with no further detail regarding said motors provided by the
example. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Form 18.
5. Claim 1 of the '620 patent is a method claim, 3 not a product or a service sold
to consumers and available for public inspection by plaintiff. As I undeffstand it, the
accused "network congestion management practices" are instead used by defendants
internally to provide better service to their customers. A rational query is

whE~ther

there

is any way for a patent holder, such as plaintiff, to present - in a complaint - the kind of
factual detail defendants suggest is required under the Iqbal/Twombly standard.
Drawing on my judicial experience and common sense, I would say "no." Indeed, if the
practices identified by plaintiff operate through defendants' proprietary software, then it
is reasonable to conclude that the notice requirements have been met, based on the
quantity and quality of publicly available information. To follow defendants' reasoning
3

Claim 1 states:
A method for alleviating congestion in a communication network,
the communication network enabling the flow of data to and from a
plurality of end user devices that are connected to the network through a
plurality of communication devices, the method comprising the steps of:
monitoring data flows to and from the plurality of end user devices
for indications of congestion; and
controlling the data rate of at least one end user device in response
to said congestion indications.

(0.1. 1. ex. 1 at 14)

4

would deny an entire class of patent holders the opportunity to even get before a court
to test the strength of their intellectual property rights through discovery, let alone to
enforce such rights.
6. Of the cases cited by the parties, the fact pattern in Eidos Communications,
LLC v. Skype Technologies SA, 686 F. Supp. 2d 464 (0. Del. 2010), is most analogous.

In Eidos, plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that defendants produced, offered for sale,
sold, and/or imported "communication system products and/or methodologies that
infringe one or more claims" of each asserted patent. Although there was a general
discussion of the technology at issue in the background portion of the complaint, no
specific products or methodologies were identified in the infringement counts of the
complaint. In their responsive papers, however, plaintiffs provided more specific
information about the single software product that defendants offered for download on
their website and how that product worked. Rather than dismissing

thE~

complaint, the

court concluded, on the record generated through the motion practice, that "Huie 8
require[d] plaintiffs to provide more information," at least the information included in their
responsive papers. Id. at 469. Plaintiffs were ordered to amend their complaint, or face
dismissal of their action.
7. Conclusion. Plaintiff at bar also has provided more information in its
responsive papers, 4 at least identifying what publically available information formed the
basis of its infringement allegations. Under the law as it currently stands, 5 defendants'

4

See (0.1. 13 at 4-10; Civ. No. 14-898, 0.1. 15 at 3-4) (outlining information regarding
defendants' alleged infringing network congestion management practices).
5
The overarching issue of whether inventions expressed through software should have
been patented in the first instance is being reexamined on a national level and is not
before the court presently. Therefore, so long as the patents being asserted are

5

motions to dismiss are denied without prejudice to renew if plaintiff fails to amend the
complaints at issue consistent with the above and with its responsive papers. An order
shall issue.

District Judge

6