SIPCO, LLC et al v. Streetline, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion to Dismiss in part the Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 30 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' motion for addition time to respond (D.I. 27 ) is therefore DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/7/2018. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
SIPCO, LLC and IP CO., LLC,
Civil Action No. 16-830-RGA
STREETLINE, INC., KAPSCH
TRAFFICCOM HOLDING CORP., and
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM U.S. CORP.
Plaintiffs SIPCO and IP Co. filed a complaint against Defendants Streetline, Inc. and
Kapsch Trafficcom Holding Corp. alleging infringement often patents. (D.I. 1). Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 7), which I granted. (D.I. 15). I gave
Plaintiffs leave to amend, and Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint ("F AC"). (D.I. 16).
The FAC added Kapsch Trafficcom U.S. Corp. as a third defendant, assertions of indirect
infringement, and a detailed description of the accused product. (See id.). Defendants again
moved to dismiss. (D.I. 18). I granted that motion. (D.I. 24). I again gave Plaintiffs leave to
amend, and Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). (D.I. 25). Defendants
moved to dismiss in part the SAC. (D.I. 30). I now consider that motion.
The SAC adds ten new claim charts, which appear to show how the accused products
meet each limitation of the asserted claims of the ten patents-in-suit. (D.I. 26, Exhs. 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20).
Defendants Kapsch Trafficcom Holding Corp. and Kapsch Trafficcom U.S. Corp.
("Kapsch") argue the SAC fails to state claims against them for direct or induced infringement.
(D.I. 31 at 7). Defendant Streetline argues the SAC fails to state a claim against it for induced
The SAC names some of the component parts of the parking system with some
specificity. (DJ. 25 iii! 18, 19, 20). The SAC makes clear that the products at issue are Streetline
products, and that Kaps ch' s involvement as defendants grows out of their 2015 acquisition of
Streetline is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the Kapsch
As to claims of direct infringement against Kapsch, I do not think the SAC meets the
Twombly/ Iqbal pleading standard. In the SAC, Plaintiffs allege Kapsch "ha[s] directly infringed
[the patents-at-issue] by either offering to sell and selling the Streetline system cited above in
reference to infringement by Defendant Streetline." (D.I. 25 iii! 31, 40, 47, 53, 65, 71, 77, 83, 89;
see also id.
In some circumstances, this might be enough, but here the SAC makes clear
that it is Streetline's product. Thus, the allegation that Streetline's corporate relatives also sell
the product is sufficiently inconsistent with the other allegations as to require some factual
assertions to make the allegation "plausible." The only factual support for the allegation that
Kapsch "offers to sell, or sells" the patented inventions is the Kapsch website, which states, "Our
offerings include .... " (Id.
iii! 23, 24). The website goes on to list parking solutions, including
sensors and parking space management. (Id.). Above the heading, "Our offerings include," is a
short paragraph related to Kapsch' s acquisition of Streetline. (Id.
In my opinion, these facts are insufficient to allow the Court to draw a "reasonable
inference" that Kapsch is liable for offering to sell or selling the patented inventions. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In other words, I do not think the fact that Kapsch's
website states "[ o]ur offerings include," without more, supports an inference that Kapsch is
manifesting a willingness to enter into a bargain with a prospective customer. See Rotec Indus.
v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1254-55 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (defining "offer to sell" in 35
U.S.C. § 27l(a) "according to the norms of traditional contractual analysis"). Nothing on the
website provided in the SAC suggests one could purchase any of the listed parking solutions
from Kapsch. Similarly, there are no facts alleged in the SAC supporting the inference that
Kapsch "sells" or has sold the patented inventions. Thus, I am dismissing the SAC as to claims
of direct infringement against Kapsch.
As to the claim of induced infringement against Streetline, I similarly do not think the
SAC meets the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard. In applying that standard, the Federal Circuit
has held that in order for a claim of induced infringement to survive a motion to dismiss, the
"complaint must contain facts plausibly showing that [Defendants] specifically intended their
customers to infringe the [asserted patents] and knew that the customer's acts constituted
infringement." In re Bill ofLading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F .3d
1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also id. ("Liability under§ 271(b) requires knowledge that the
induced acts constitute patent infringement." (quoting Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEE SA.,
131 S. Ct. 2060, 2068 (2011 ))). It is not sufficient for the complaint to contain only a "formulaic
recitation" of the elements of an inducement claim. See id. at 1346 (quoting Bell At!. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007)).
In this case, the sole allegation of induced infringement against Streetline appears in
Count II of the SAC. That Count alleges that Streetline "has infringed and continues to infringe .
. . by intentionally inducing persons to practice the patented method of claim 11 [of the '496
patent] through implementation and use of Streetline Equipment in combination with one or
more of the Streetline Programs. Defendant Streetline is thus liable for indirect infringement
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)." (D.I. 25 if 39). It consists of nothing more than a bare
recitation of the legal elements of an inducement claim. The SAC contains no facts to support
the allegation that Streetline had specific intent to induce infringement. I am therefore
dismissing the SAC as to the claim of induced infringement against Streetline. 1
All ten counts also allege induced infringement against Kapsch. But the allegations
against Kapsch are just as formulaic as they are in the one allegation of induced infringement
against Streetline. Other than providing a portion of the Kapsch website, which lists certain
parking solutions, the SAC contains no facts to support the allegation that Kapsch specifically
intended others to infringe Plaintiffs patents. Therefore, for the same reasons, I am dismissing
the SAC as to claims of induced infringement against Kapsch.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss in part the SAC (D.I. 30) is
GRANTED. Defendants' motion for additional time to respond (D.I. 27) is therefore
DISMISSED as moot.
It is SO ORDERED this 1_ day of February 2018.
Because I find the SAC fails to adequately plead the mental state required for a claim of induced
infringement, I need not reach or consider Defendants' additional argument that Plaintiffs' inducement
allegations are deficient because they fail to generally identify the alleged direct infringers. (D.I. 31 at
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?