LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Arvato Systems North America, Inc. et al

Filing 24

OPINION re: 8 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or in the Alternative. MOTION for More Definite Statement , filed by Arvato Digital Services, LLC, Arvato Systems North America, Inc., 16 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), filed by Arvato Digital Services, LLC, Arvato Entertainment LLC, Arvato Systems North America, Inc. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants motions to dismiss the FACs against them are both granted, and Plaintiff's claims as to direct infringement by products or methods other than DVD-9 discs, claims of willfulness, and claims of induced infringement are all dismissed. Plaintiff's dire ct infringement claims as to DVD-9 discs survive. In both cases, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the original Complaints on July 14, 2015. Mot. to Dismiss Compl., LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram Grqup Inc., No. 15-cv-1629 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015 ); Mot. to Dismiss Compl., LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Arvato Systems N. Am., No. 15-cv-3822 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015). Plaintiffs filed First Amended Complaints on July 31, 2015, before the motions could be heard. See Cinram FAC; Arvato FAC. Plaintiff was on notice as to the deficiency of their pleadings. Therefore, the aforementioned claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaints are dismissed with prejudice. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/18/2015) (spo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------x
LASERDYNAMICS USA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
15 Civ. 1629 (RWS)
- against OPINION
CINRAM GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

I

----------------------------------------x
LASERDYNAMICS USA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
15 Civ. 3822 (RWS)
- against OPINION
ARVATO SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC., .
ARVATO DIGITAL SERVICES LLC, and ARVATO
ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
Defendants.

----------------------------------------x

A P P E A RA N C E S:
Attorneys for Plaintiff LaserDynamics USA,
LLC
KHEYFITS & MALONEY LLP
1140 6th Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
By:
Dmitry A. Kheyfits, Esq.
Michael James Maloney, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants Cinram Group Inc.,
Arvato Systems North America, Inc., Arvato
1

Digital Services, LLC, and Arvato
Entertainment LLC
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
By:
Ivan S. Kavrukov, Esq.
Tonia A. Sayour, Esq.
Elana Araj, Esq.

2

Sweet, D.J.

Defendants Arvato Systems North America, Inc.

("Arvato

Systems"), Arvato Digital Services LLC ("Arvato Digital"), and
Arvato Entertainment LLC ("Arvato Entertainment," collectively
"Arvato") and Cinram Group ("Cinram," collectively the
"Defendants") have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the First Amended
Complaints ("FACs") filed by LaserDynamics USA, LLC
("LaserDynamics" or the "Plaintiff") alleging infringement under
35 U.S.C.§§ 1, et. seq. of one or
No's. 6,426,927

mo~e

claims of U.S. Patent

(the '"927 patent"), 6,529,469 (the "'469

patent"), and 7,116,629 (the "'629 patent," collectively the
"patents-in-suit") .

Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants

are substantively duplicative and relate to the recording and
reproduction of optical discs.

For these reasons, the motions

and FACs will be addressed together. Based on the conclusions
set forth below, the motions to dismiss are granted.

Prior Proceedings

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court
against Cinram, alleging patent infringement.

See Compl.,

LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram Group Inc., No. 15-cv-1629
3

(S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2015).

A nearly identical complaint was

filed against Arvato on May 18,

2015~

See Compl., LaserDynamics

USA, LLC v. Arvato Systems N. Am., No. 15-cv-3822 (S.D.N.Y. May
18, 2015).

Plaintiff alleges:

(1) dual layer optical discs

replicated by Defendants in conformance with the DVD-9 format
infringe on at least claims 1 and 3 of the '927 patent, claims 1
and 10 of the '469 patent, and/or claims 1 and 6 of the '629
patent;

(2) such direct infringement was and is being committed

willfully; and (3) Defendants induce others to make, use,
import, provide, supply, distribute, sell and offer products
that infringe on the aforementioned claims of the patents-insui t

for the purposes of selling Defendants' replication

services.

The Arvato action was deemed related to the Cinram action
on June 8, 2015.

On July 14, 2015, each Defendant moved to

dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, for
a more definite statement.

Mot. to Dismiss Compl.,

LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram Group Inc., No. 15-cv-1629
(S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015); Mot. to Dismiss Compl., LaserDynamics
USA, LLC v. Arvato Systems N. Am., No. 15-cv-3822 (S.D.N.Y. July
14, 2015).

Before those motions were argued or decided,

Plaintiff filed their FACs in both actions on July 31, 2015.
4

First Am. Compl., LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram Group Inc.,
No. 15-cv-1629 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2015)

(hereinafter "Cinram

FAC"); First Am. Compl., LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Arvato
Systems N. Am., No. 15-cv-3822 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2015)
(hereinafter "Arvato FAC").
the FACs on August 20, 2015.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss
Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss FAC,

LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram Group Inc., No. 15-cv-1629
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2015)
to Dismiss FAC,

(hereinafter "Cinram MTD"); Def.'s Mot.

LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Arvato Systems N. Am.,

No. 15-cv-3822 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2015)

(hereinafter "Arvato

MTD") .

The FACs, which mirror one another in substance, contain
the following allegations.

LaserDynamics owns three lawfully

issued patents entitled "Data Recording and Reproducing Method
For Multi-Layered Optical Disk System[s]": the '927 patent, the
'469 patent, and the '629 patent. Cinram FAC
~~

8-11.

~~

6-9; Arvato FAC

The patents were issued to Yasuo Kamatani, the

inventor of the technology claimed, between March 4, 2003 and
October 3, 2006.

Cinram FAC

~~

19-21; Arvato FAC

~~

24-26.

All

three patents were assigned to LaserDynamics at an unspecified
date.

Cinram FAC

~~

6, 22; Arvato FAC

~~

8, 27.

Cinram, a Canadian corporation, operates as a manufacturer,
5

user, and seller of dual-layer optical discs for United States
customers.

Cinram FAC

~~

3, 12.

Arvato North America is the

parent corporation of Arvato LLC and Arvato Entertainment, and
all three also operate as manufacturers, users, and sellers of
dual-layer optical desks for U.S. customers.
14.

3-5,

~~

The Cinram and Arvato discs are manufactured in conformance

with the industry standard for "DVD-9."
FAC

Arvato FAC

c:!I

14.

Cinram FAC

c:!I

12; Arvato

"At least" this DVD-9 replication format used by

Defendants willfully directly infringes on claims 1 and 3 of the
'927 patent, claims 1 and 10 of the '469 patent, and/or claims 1
and 6 of the '629 patent.
29.

Cinram FAC

c:!I

12, 24; Arvato FAC

14,

c:!I

In addition, Defendants induce others to infringe on the

aforementioned patent claims in the course of offering
reproduction and related services to customers.
12-15; Arvato FAC

c:!I~

15-17.

Cinram FAC

c:!I

There are no distinctions between

Plaintiff's claims against Cinram and Plaintiff's claim against
each Arvato entity.
51 and id.

c:!I~

Compare Arvato 'FAC

52-64 and Cinram FAC

~~

~c:!I

27-38 with id.

~c:!I

39-

18-33.

General Patent Corporation ("GPC"), LaserDynamics' manager,
informed Cinram of the infringement by letters on October 27,
2014 and November 24, 2014.

Cinram FAC

~

16. GPC attempted to

correspond with Arvato on five occasions between October 28,
2014 and May 7, 2015 to notify Arvato of the alleged
6

infringement. Arvato FAC

~

18.

Though Arvato consists of three

separate entities (Arvato North America, Arvato LLC, and Arvato
Entertainment), each has officers, employees, and offices in
common, and thus GPC considered each an agent of the other for
purposes of receipt of the correspondence.

Arvato FAC

~

21.

The motions to dismiss were heard and marked fully
submitted on September 16, 2015.

The Applicable Standard

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), all
factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and
all inferences are drawn in favor of the pleader.

Mills v.

Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170, 1174 (2d Cir. 1993).
However, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions."
(2007)

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(quotation marks omitted).

A complaint must contain

"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
556 U.S.

662, 663 (2009)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

A claim is facially plausible when "the plaintiff pleads
7

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged."
556).

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

In other words, the factual allegations must "possess

enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, while "a plaintiff may plead facts alleged
upon information and belief 'where the belief is based on
factual information that makes the inference of culpability
plausible,' such allegations must be 'accompanied by a statement
of the facts upon which the belief is founded.'"

Munoz-Nagel v.

Guess, Inc., No. 12-1312, 2013 WL 18.09772, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30,
2013)

(quoting Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120

(2d Cir. 2010)) and Prince v. Madison Square Garden, 427 F.
Supp. 2d 372, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Williams v.
Calderoni, No. 11-3020, 2012 WL 691832, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1,
2012).
than

The pleadings, however, "must contain something more
. . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion

[of] a legally cognizable right of action."

Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 555 (quoting 5 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER,
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE§ 1216 (3d ed. 2004)).

8

I.

LaserDynamics Has Pled Sufficient Facts to Support a Claim
of Direct Infringement As to DVD-9 Discs

Noting differences between Defendants original motions to
dismiss the complaints, Plaintiffs argue that in the motions now
at bar, Defendants "concede that Plaintiff's identification of
'opposite-track path, dual-layer video DVDs' known in the
industry as 'DVD-9' discs is sufficient" to plead direct
infringement.

Pl.'s Opp., LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram

Group Inc., No. 15-cv-1629 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2015)
"Pl.'s Opp.

(hereinafter

(Cinram)") at 1; Pl.'s Opp., LaserDynamics USA, LLC

v. Arvato Systems N. Am., No. 15-cv-·3822 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3,
2015)

(hereinafter "Pl.' s Opp.

(Arvato) ") at 1.

Defendants note

that LaserDynamics is a "non-practicing shell entity with no
known assets other than" the patents in suit.
Arvato MTD at 2.

Cinram MTD at 2;

Both Defendants nonetheless agree in their

reply that Plaintiff has properly pled a claim for direct
infringement with regard to DVD-9 discs.

Def.'s Reply,

LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram Group Inc., No. 15-cv-1629
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2015)

(hereinafter "Cinram Reply") at 9;

Def.'s Reply, LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Arvato Systems N. Am.,
No. 15-cv-3822 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2015)
Reply") at 9.

9

(hereinafter "Arvato

As to other direct infringement claims, Plaintiff alleges
only that "[Defendants'] infringing products include, but are
not limited to, at least dual-layer DVD-9 discs."
24;

~

Arvato FAC

~~

29, 42, 55 (emphasis added).

Cinram FAC
LaserDynamics

also makes reference broadly to "infringing methods."
FAC

~

28; Arvato FAC

~~

33, 46, 59.

Cinram

Plaintiff alleges no facts

to support a claim that Defendants produce products other than
DVD-9 discs that plausibly infringe, or that Defendants practice
some particular methods that plausibly infringe.

A patent allegation that pleads "a specific product that
allegedly infringes [an identified] patent by virtue of certain
specific characteristics" is sufficient to meet the Twombly
standard.

Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., No. 14-CV-1650

KBF, 2014 WL 2795461, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2014).

The

parties agree LaserDynamics has met this burden with regard to
DVD-9 discs.

However, the "at least" and "infringing methods"

language fails to plead a plausible claim for infringement as to
the universe of unidentified products and methods.

Accordingly,

the direct infringement claims as tq DVD-9 discs remain and
Plaintiff's direct infringement claims as to all other products
or methods are dismissed.

10

II.

LaserDynamics Has Failed to Plead Sufficient Facts to
Support a Claim of Willful Infringement

"To willfully infringe a patent, the patent must exist and
the accused infringer must have knowledge of it.

Then, a

patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence [l] that the
infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its
actions constituted infringement of a valid patent and [2] that
this objectively-defined risk .

was either known or so

obvious that it should have been known to the accused
infringer." Inv. Tech. Grp.,
759 F. Supp. 2d 387, 410

Inc. v .. Liquidnet Holdings, Inc.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2010) aff'd sub nom.

Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. v. Pulse Trading, Inc., 478 F. App'x
671 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and aff 'd sub nom. Liquidnet Holdings,

Inc.

v. Pulse Trading, Inc., 478 F. App'x 671 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Laserdynamics has alleged no facts supporting a willfulness
finding.

Plaintiff argues that the GPC correspondence and

filing and service of the complaint constitute "an objectively
high likelihood" that Defendants' were infringing, and that
Defendants were subjectively aware of that infringement.
Opp.

(Cinram) at 13; Pl.'s Opp.

(Arvato) at 12.

Pl.'s

The GPC

correspondence never so much as uses the word "infringement"
except to notify Arvato of Plaintiff's infringement suits
11

against Cinram and others.

See Deel. of Tonia Sayour in Supp.

re: Cinram MTD, Exs. 1-4; Deel. of Tonia Sayour in Supp. re:
Arvato MTD, Exs. 1-5.

The correspondence supplies no additional

substantive facts not contained in the FACs.

The facts alleged

in the FACs supporting the infringement claim amount to these
following: Plaintiff owns patents related to reproduction of
dual-layer optical disks, Defendants are each in the business of
reproducing such disks using an industry standard method, and
thus in the course of engaging in this business, Defendants
infringe on Plaintiff's patents.

See Cinram FAC; Arvato FAC.

"At the pleading stage, a plaintiff alleging a cause of
action for willful infringement must plead facts giving rise to
at least a showing of objective recklessness of the infringement
risk."

MONEC Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 897 F.

Supp. 2d 225, 236 (D. Del. 2012)
marks omitted).

(citations omitted)

(quotation

The facts pled offer a plausible risk that

Defendants were engaging in infringement by reproducing DVD-9s,
and hence these claims survive Twombly.

But the fact of some

risk does not meet the much higher burden of plausibly claiming
that an objectively high risk of infringement existed.

Without

additional facts to support a conclusion that infringement was
more than a risk in the course of Defendants' business and was
highly likely, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden.
12

As to knowledge, Plaintiff supplies that Defendants' knew
that their conduct constituted infringement because each entity
is a sophisticated player in the DVD reproduction business, and
by way of the GPC correspondence and· filing of this action.
Pl.'s Opp.

(Cinram) at 13; Pl.'s Opp.

(Arvato) at 12.

"The

complaint must demonstrate a link between the various
allegations of knowledge of the patents-in-suit and the
allegations that the risks of infringement were either known or
were so obvious that they should have been known."

MONEC

Holding AG., 897 F. Supp. at 236 (citation omitted)

(quotation

marks omitted).

In other words, actual knowledge is not

necessary, but some pled facts must support a plausible finding
as to the risk of infringement.

See id.

The limited facts pled in Plaintiff's FACs and the
incentives for licensing agreements in the GPC correspondence
just as easily support a conclusion that Defendants knew of
Plaintiff's infringement claims, but assumed them frivolous or
invalid such that no (or little) risk existed.

Plaintiff has

not pled any additional facts to support its conclusion of known
or objectively obvious risk.

Knowledge of claims, without

additional facts, does not alone prove knowledge of risk, let
alone recklessness.

See e.g., Aeritas, LLC v. Alaska Air Grp.,

Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 680,

685 (D. Del. 2012)
13

("the burden to

prove willful infringement includes more than mere knowledge of
the patent"); See also Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron
Corp., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1094 (E:D. Cal. 2009) ("Willful
infringement is not established by the simple fact of
infringement, even where the accused has knowledge of the
patents." (quotation marks omitted)

(citing Eastman Kodak Co. v.

Agfa-Gevaert N.V., 560 F.Supp.2d 227, 302 (W.D.N.Y.2008)).
Moreover, "when a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a
good faith basis for alleging willful infringement."
Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d at 1374.

In re

Plaintiff's attempt to

reserve its ability to seek a willfulness finding based on postfiling knowledge therefore does not suffice to save its claim.

Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to support a
plausible willfulness finding.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's

willfulness claims are dismissed.

III.

LaserDynamics Has Failed to Plead Sufficient Facts to
Support a Claim of Induced Infringement

Defendants submit Plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient
to allow for a reasonable inference of induced infringement.
Cinram MTD at 2; Arvato MTD at 2.
14

The substance of Plaintiff's

inducement claims is that Defendants "induce [infringement] by
inter alia marketing, selling, and/or offering for sale its

replication services, including by providing replication
customers instructions, specifications and/or other materials
relating to the replication of DVD-9 discs and [Defendants']
replication services."

Cinram FAC

27; Arvato FAC

~

~

32, 45, 58

As an initial matter, it must be noted that Plaintiff's
induced infringement theory is inconsistent.

Inducement

liability implies actively encouraging another to infringe.

See

DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
At some points, Plaintiff alleges as much: "[Defendants] also
indirectly infringe under 35 U.S.C.

27l(b) by way of inducing

§

others, including customers and/or consumers, to make, use,
import, provide, supply, distribute,: sell and offer to sell
products that infringe."
(emphasis added).

Cinram FAC

~

26; Arvato FAC

~

31

But at other points, Plaintiff's inducement

claim implies that rather than inducing customers to infringe,
Defendants are inducing customers to utilize Defendants' own
infringing services: "[Each Defendant] continues to induce its
customers to engage [Defendants] for replication of dual-layer
optical discs that infringe at least the aforementioned claims
of the Patents-in-Suit."

Cinram FAC

~

27; Arvato FAC

~

32.

This is something distinct from encouraging another to commit an
15

infringing act.

Regardless of whether Plaintiff intends to assert that
Defendants' customers are committing an infringing act or
Defendants are inducing its customers to engage Defendants' to
themselves commit infringement, LaserDynamics has failed to
adequately plead the additional elements of induced
infringement.

"To sufficiently plead inducement, the patentee

must show that the accused inducer took an affirmative act to
encourage infringement with the knowledge that the induced acts
[S]pecific intent and

constitute patent infringement.

action to induce infringement must be proven."

3D Sys., Inc. v.

Formlabs, Inc., No. 13 CIV. 7973, 2014 WL 1904365, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2014) (citations omitted).

Both knowledge of

the alleged infringement and specific intent involving "culpable
conduct, directed to encouraging another's infringement" are
therefore required.

See DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d

1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Knowledge (or willful blindness)
established.

is inadequately

Plaintiff argues that the GPC letters suffice to

meet the knowledge requirement, and are incorporated in the FAC.
Pl.'s Opp. at 9.

However, again, the GPC letters to Arvato and

Cinram do not even forthrightly state legal conclusions, but
16

..

rather attempt primarily to goad Defendants to sign licensing
agreements.

See Deel. of Tonia Sayour in Supp. re: Cinram MTD,

Exs. 1-4 (e.g., "Based on publically available information, we
understand that some Cinram DVD movie disks include features
recited in the claims of these patents. Based on the presence of
these features, we believe that Cinram might be interested in
licensing one or more of the LaserDynamics USA patents."); Deel.
of Tonia Sayour in Supp. re: Arvato MTD, Exs. 1-5 (stating the
same with regard to Arvato) . 1

It is difficult to assert any Defendants had knowledge of
the infringement where it cannot be said that Defendants were
aware of a plausibly high risk of infringement based solely on
the correspondence.

As reasoned above, Plaintiff's unadorned

(and implicitly stated)

infringement "notice" via the

correspondence could have been received as unsubstantiated and
unenforceable patent trolling just as they could have amounted
to knowledge of likely infringement.

Without any facts from

Plaintiff to nudge the Court in one direction or the other,
knowledge is not plausibly pled.

1 Arvato Entertainment also disclaims any knowledge can be
attributed to it based on correspondence with Arvato N.A. and
Arvato Digital.
Arvato MTD at 13.

17

Even assuming knowledge was adequately established through
the GPC correspondence or otherwise, Plaintiff has failed to
adequately plead specific intent.

LaserDynamics offers few

additional facts to support the higher culpability standard of
specific intent for its induced infringement claim, other than
to argue that Defendants off er and market ancillary services to
its manufacturing business, and again that Defendants had
knowledge their services infringed.
Arvato FAC

~~

15-17, 31-33.

Cinram FAC

~~

13-15, 26-28;

Knowledge of the infringement alone

is not enough to establish culpability.

See DSU Med. Corp. v.

JMS Co., 471 F. 3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

("inducement

requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging
another's infringement, not merely that the inducer had
knowledge of the direct infringer's activities").

The facts

Plaintiff alleges do not support the theory that Defendants
specifically intended to induce infringement in the normal
course of operating their business any more than they support
the theory that Defendants were lawfully soliciting customers to
use their services to keep Defendants' businesses afloat.
between the obvious alternative explanation .

"As

and the

purposeful, invidious" unlawful conduct Defendant asks the Court
to infer, the unlawful explanation "is not a plausible
conclusion."

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 682.

18

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants motions to
dismiss the FACs against them are both granted, and Plaintiff's
claims as to direct infringement by products or methods other
than DVD-9 discs, claims of willfulness, and claims of induced
infringement are all dismissed. Plaintiff's direct infringement
claims as to DVD-9 discs survive.

In both cases, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
original Complaints on July 14, 2015. Mot. to Dismiss Compl.,
LaserDynamics USA, LLC v. Cinram Grqup Inc., No. 15-cv-1629
I

(S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015); Mot. to Dismiss Compl., LaserDynamics
USA, LLC v. Arvato Systems N. Am., No. 15-cv-3822 (S.D.N.Y. July
14, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed First Amended Complaints on July

31, 2015, before the motions could be heard.
Arvato FAC.

See Cinram FAC;

Plaintiff was on notice as to the deficiency of

their pleadings.

Therefore, the aforementioned claims in

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaints are dismissed with
prejudice.
It is so ordered.

New York, NY
October

J,-<j",

T W. SWEET
U.S.D.J.

2015

19