WSOU Investments, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in case 1:20-cv-01228-CFC-JLH,1:20-cv-01229-CFC-JLH, 1:20-cv-01232-CFC-JLH, 1:20-cv-01231-CFC-JLH, 1:20-cv-01233-CFC-JLH; adopting Report and Recommendations re (36) Report and Recommendations.; g ranting (12) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:20-cv-01228-CFC-JLH; adopting Report and Recommendations re (35) Report and Recommendations.; granting (12) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:20-cv-01229-CFC-JLH; adopting Report and Recommendations re (35) Repo rt and Recommendations.; granting (12) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:20-cv-01232-CFC-JLH; adopting Report and Recommendations re (35) Report and Recommendations.; granting (12) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:20-cv-01231-CFC-JLH; adopting Report and Rec ommendations re (34) Report and Recommendations.; granting (11) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:20-cv-01233-CFC-JLH. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 6/8/2021. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-01228-CFC-JLH, 1:20-cv-01229-CFC-JLH, 1:20-cv-01231-CFC-JLH, 1:20-cv-01232-CFC-JLH, 1:20-cv-01233-CFC-JLH(nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
XILINX, INC.,
Defendant.
WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
XILINX, INC.,
Defendant.
WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.

XILINX, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 20-1228-CFC/JLH

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 20-1229-CFC/JLH

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 20-1231-CFC/JLH

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.

XILINX, INC.,
Defendant.
WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
XILINX, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 20-1232-CFC/JLH

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 20-1233-CFC/JLH

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before me is PlaintiffWSOU Investments, LLC's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's May 21, 2021 Report and Recommendation issued in each of
these cases. D.I. 39 in 1:20-cv-01228-CFC-JLH; D.I. 38 in 1:20-cv-01229-CFCJLH; D.I. 38 in 1:20-cv-01231-CFC-JLH; D.I. 38 in 1:20-cv-01232-CFC-JLH; D.I.
37 in 1 :20-cv-01233-CFC-JLH. The Magistrate Judge recommended in the Report
and Recommendation that, "if [I] intend[] to follow [the] rule set forth in

Zapfraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., Defendant[s'] motions to dismiss
Plaintiffs indirect infringement claims should be granted, and ... the indirect
2

infringement claims should be dismissed without prejudice." D.I. 36 in 1 :20-cv01228-CFC-JLH; D.I. 35 in l:20-cv-01229-CFC-JLH; D.I. 35 in 1:20-cv-01231CFC-JLH; D.I. 35 in 1 :20-cv-01232-CFC-JLH; D.I. 34 in 1 :20-cv-01233-CFCJLH.
The Magistrate Judge had the authority to make her findings and
recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). I review her findings and
recommendation de nova.§ 636(b)(l); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Brown v.

Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).
I adopted in Zapfraud "the rule that the operative complaint in a lawsuit fails
to state a claim for indirect patent infringement where the defendant's alleged
knowledge of the asserted patents is based solely on the content of that complaint
or a prior version of the complaint filed in the same lawsuit." ZapFraud, Inc. v.

Barracuda Networks, Inc., No. CV 19-1687-CFC-CJB, 2021 WL 1134687, at *4
(D. Del. Mar. 24, 2021). WSOU has not persuaded me that I should reject that
rule.
WSOU admits that in each case its allegation that the Defendant had
knowledge of the asserted patents is based solely on the fact that the Defendant
was served with a prior version of the operative complaint. Accordingly, the

3

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that under Zapfraud WSOU failed to state
claims of indirect infringement against Defendants.
Now therefore, at Wilmington on this Eighth day of June in 2021, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. WSOU's objections (D.I. 39 in 1:20-cv-01228-CFC-JLH; D.I. 38 in
1:20-cv-01229-CFC-JLH; D.I. 38 in 1:20-cv-01231-CFC-JLH; D.I. 38 in
1:20-cv-01232-CFC-JLH; D.I. 37 in 1:20-cv-01233-CFC-JLH) are
OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (D.I. 36 in 1:20-cv01228-CFC-JLH; D.I. 35 in 1:20-cv-01229-CFC-JLH; D.I. 35 in l:20-cv01231-CFC-JLH; D.I. 35 in 1:20-cv-01232-CFC-JLH; D.I. 34 in 1 :20-cv01233-CFC-JLH) is ADOPTED.
3. Defendants' motions to dismiss WSOU' s indirect infringement claims
(D .I. 12 in 1:20-cv-0 1228-CFC-JLH; D .I. 12 in 1:20-cv-0 1229-CFCJLH; D.I. 12 in 1:20-cv-01231-CFC-JLH; D.I. 12 in l:20-cv-01232-CFCJLH; D.I. 11 in 1 :20-cv-01233-CFC-JLH) are GRANTED.
4. WSOU's claims of indirect infringement are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

4