Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (Dkt. # 13 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/27/2021. (rpc, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC
HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI
DEVICE CO., LTD., AND HISILICON
TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-991
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (Dkt. #13). Having considered the Motion and relevant pleadings, the
Court finds that it should be DENIED.
On December 31, 2020, Ocean Semiconductor, LLC (“Ocean”) sued Huawei Device USA,
Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., and HiSilicon Technologies Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”) for
patent infringement (Dkt. #1). On April 5, 2021, Huawei moved to dismiss the case for failure to
state a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (Dkt. #13). On April 20, 2021, Ocean responded (Dkt.
#14). On April 26, 2021, Huawei replied (Dkt. #16).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a “short
and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Each
claim must include enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded
facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court may consider “the
complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to
dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.),
L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court must then determine
whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600,
603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “But where the wellpleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency
of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and
disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 664. Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine
if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ‘simply calls for enough
facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary claims
or elements.’” Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. App’x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This
evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”’ Id. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
After reviewing the Motion, the pleadings, and briefing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
stated plausible claims for purposes of defeating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (Dkt. #13) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 27th day of April, 2021.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?