Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC, et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 59

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting #41 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiffs to file amended complaint no later than 2/24/2012. (TG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

EAGLE HARBOR HOLDINGS LLC,
and MEDIUSTECH LLC,
CASE NO. C11-5503BHS

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS

Defendant.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”)

14

motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 41). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed

15

in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby

16

grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.

17

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18
19
20

On June 30, 2011, Plaintiffs Eagle Harbor Holdings LLC and Mediustech LLC
filed a complaint against Ford alleging infringement of various patents. Dkt. 1. On
October 20, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging that Ford directly

21

infringed various patents as well as “actively induc[ed] others to use in an
22
23

infringing manner” instruments that infringe various patents. Dkt. 33.
On December 28, 2011, Ford filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and

24
25

requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ induced infringement claims. Dkt. 41. On

26

January 9, 2012, Plaintiffs responded. Dkt. 48. On January 13, 2012, Ford replied. Dkt.

27

52.

28
ORDER - 1

II. DISCUSSION

1
2

Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a]fter the

3

pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for

4

judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Rule 12(c) is the functional

5

equivalent of Rule 12(b)(6), and “‘the same standard of review’ applies to motions

6
7
8

brought under either rule.” United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,
637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867
F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)). Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) may

9

be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts
10
11
12
13

alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699
(9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the complaint is construed
in the plaintiff’s favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9th Cir. 1983). To

14

survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint does not require detailed factual allegations

15

but must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief and not merely a “formulaic

16

recitation” of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.

17

Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Plaintiffs must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that

18

is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.

19

In this case, Ford argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ induced

20

infringement claims because Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to support its

21

claim. The Court agrees.

22
23
24
25
26
27

Under section 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a
patent shall be liable as an infringer.” . . . To establish liability under section
271(b), a patent holder must prove that once the defendants knew of the
patent, they “actively and knowingly aid[ed] and abett[ed] another's direct
infringement.” . . . However, “knowledge of the acts alleged to constitute
infringement” is not enough . . . The “mere knowledge of possible
infringement by others does not amount to inducement; specific intent and
action to induce infringement must be proven.”
***
It must be established that the defendant possessed specific intent to
encourage another’s infringement and not merely that the defendant had

28
ORDER - 2

1
2

knowledge of the acts alleged to constitute inducement. The plaintiff has the
burden of showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing
acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual
infringements.

3

DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1305-1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
4

Plaintiffs have provided mere labels and conclusions that Ford induced infringement of
5
6
7
8
9

others. Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to support the necessary elements of this claim
such as Ford’s knowledge of the patents or a specific intent to induce infringement.
Therefore, the Court grants Ford’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In the event a Court finds that dismissal is warranted, a Court should grant the

10

plaintiff leave to amend unless amendment would be futile. Eminence Capital, LLC v.

11

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs have requested leave to

12

amend, and Ford has failed to show that amendment would be futile. Ford, however,

13

requests that the Court require Plaintiffs to identify the third parties that Ford allegedly

14

induced to infringe Plaintiffs’ patents. Dkt. 52 at 7-8. Although, as Plaintiffs point out,

15

some of this information may be obtained by complying with Local Patent Rule 120(d),

16

the Local Rules are not a substitute for inadequate pleadings. Therefore, the Court grants

17

Ford’s request and Plaintiffs must identify the “others” that Ford actively induced to

18

infringe Plaintiffs’ patents.

19
20

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Ford’s motion for judgment on the

21

pleadings (Dkt. 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint no later
22

than February 24, 2012.
23
24

DATED this 7th day of February, 2012.

25
26

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

27
28
ORDER - 3