Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. v. Apple Inc.
MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying in part and Granting in part MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Willful and Indirect Infringement and Prayer for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief (D.I. 26 ). The case is closed for administrative purposes (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/29/2016. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CHESTNUT HILL SOUND INC.,
Civil Action No. 15-261-RGA
There is a pending motion to dismiss. (D.I. 26). It is fully briefed.
The basis for the willfulness allegations is discussions and meetings that took place from
2004 to 2008. The asserted patents issued in 2012 and 2014. The complaint is silent about the
years 2009 to 2011, and, other than the issuance of the patents, beyond that point. I do not think
my Robocast decision is controlling at this point in the litigation. I will DENY the motion to
dismiss on this ground, because I think it is plausible that Defendant either tracks suggestions of
patent infringement (D.I. 21-4), or would be reckless in not doing so. The Supreme Court has
two pending willfulness cases, and it there is a ruling that changes the law, Defendant is free to
renew its motion should Defendant believe that appropriate.
For similar reasons, I will DENY the motion to dismiss the claims of induced
infringement. I agree that the claim of contributory infringement is "formulaic," and I will
therefore GRANT the motion in regard to it. The claim of contributory infringement is
The preliminary injunction I have already dealt with, and the request to strike the
permanent injunction is DENIED.
I am going to administratively close this case in view of the stay. (D.I. 52). The time for
Defendant to respond to the complaint will not start running until the stay is lifted and the case is
IT IS SO ORDERED this
J!f_ day of February 2016.
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?