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
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?