Westech Aerosol Corporation v. 3M Company et al
Filing
49
ORDER denying 42 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice; plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint to allege proper venue; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
9
WESTECH AEROSOL
CORPORATION,
10
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. C17-5067-RBL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v.
11
3M COMPANY, et al.
DKT. #42
12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants 3M’s and NorthStar’s Amended
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Westech’s Amended Complaint [Dkt. #42]. Westech alleges 3M and
its subsidiary, NorthStar, have infringed Westech’s patent for a spray glue and the canister that
dispenses it. 3M and NorthStar ask the Court to dismiss Westech’s complaint because (1) it has
pled insufficient facts in support of its direct infringement claim to survive Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007), and
(2) after the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
No. 16–341, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3213 (May 22, 207), venue is improper. Westech argues its
complaint sufficiently puts 3M and NorthStar on notice of its claims against them. It also asks
for leave to amend its complaint, so it may allege facts commensurate with TC Heartland.
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE - 1
1
I.
DISCUSSION
In its complaint, Westech lists thirty-eight 3M and NorthStar products it claims infringe
2
3
upon claim one of its patent for an “Aerosol Adhesive and Canister-Based Aerosol Adhesive
4
System,” U.S. Patent No. 7,705,056. The patent protects a glue-dispensing system comprised of
5
“a gas cylinder canister, a hose, a spray gun, a hydrocarbon propellant, and an aerosol adhesive
6
comprising a solvent mixture selected to have volatility characteristics for producing a specific
7
spray pattern, a polymeric base in said solvent mixture, and a compressed gas dissolved in the
8
solvent mixture.” Dkt. #27 (Amended Complaint) at 3. Westech claims 3M’s and NorthStar’s
9
products contain “all of the same ingredients” as its patented system. See id. at 8, 11.
The defendants ask the Court to dismiss Westech’s complaint under Federal Rule
10
11
12(b)(6) for its alleged failure to plead facts sufficient to support its claims for direct
12
infringement. They also seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue.
13
A.
14
Standards of Review.
Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal
15
theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v.
16
Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff’s complaint must allege
17
facts to state a claim for relief plausible on its face. See Aschcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
18
(2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content
19
that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
20
misconduct alleged.” Id. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment]
21
to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
22
a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
23
the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and
24
DKT. #42 - 2
1
footnotes omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
2
unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly).
On a 12(b)(6) motion, “a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to
3
4
amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured
5
by the allegation of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242,
6
247 (9th Cir. 1990). However, where the facts are not in dispute, and the sole issue is whether
7
there is liability as a matter of substantive law, the Court may deny leave to amend. See Albrecht
8
v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195–96 (9th Cir. 1988).
9
Rule 12(b)(3) allows a court to dismiss a case for improper venue. The Court need not
10
accept the pleadings as true, and it may consider facts outside of the pleadings. See Argueta v.
11
Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir. 1996). If it concludes venue is improper, it did
12
not reach the case’s merits, so dismissal must be without prejudice. See In re Hall, Bayoutree
13
Assocs., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
B.
15
Direct Infringement Claims.
3M and NorthStar argue Westech’s complaint fails to raise a plausible claim for direct
16
infringement because it does not identify how any of their products specifically infringes
17
Westech’s patent. It argues Westech must plead facts showing that some ingredients or features
18
of an accused product correspond to the elements making up its patent—that it must describe
19
what the product’s “hydrocarbon propellant,” “polymeric base,” “solvent mixture,” and
20
“compressed gas dissolved in said solvent mixture” consistent of. Westech argues it properly put
21
the defendants on notice of its claims against them by listing their accused products, identifying
22
the allegedly-infringed patent claim by number, and alleging every limitation of the claim can be
23
found in each accused product.
24
DKT. #42 - 3
1
To state a claim for direct patent infringement, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant,
2
“without authority[,] makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention.” 35 U.S.C.
3
§ 271(a); see also Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Hewlett-
4
Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 493
5
U.S. 1076 (1990)). “To prove infringement, the patentee must show that an accused product
6
embodies all limitations of the claim either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents.” Cephalon,
7
Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 707 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “[T]o properly plead direct
8
infringement under Twombly and Iqbal, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that a defendant directly
9
infringes each limitation in at least one asserted claim.” Scripps Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc.,
10
11
No. 16-CV-661 JLS (BGS), 2016 WL 6834024, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016).
Westech pleads that each of the thirty-eight products it has identified infringes each
12
limitation of claim one of its patent. Its patent protects a system where a gas cylinder canister
13
shoots out an aerosol adhesive using a hose, spray gun, and hydrocarbon propellant. The
14
adhesive comprises a compressed gas dissolved in a solvent mixture with a polymeric base.
15
Westech alleges each of the accused products is a canister “containing a hydrocarbon propellant
16
and an aerosol adhesive comprising a solvent mixture selected to have volatility characteristics
17
for producing a specific spray pattern, a polymeric base in said solvent mixture, and a
18
compressed gas dissolved in the solvent mixture” intended to be combined with a hose and a
19
spray gun. Dkt. #27 at 8, 11. Westech also alleges 3M and NorthStar knew of this alleged
20
infringement but sold their products anyway.
21
22
Westech’s complaint sufficiently puts the defendants on notice of how, where, and to
what degree it claims their products infringe its patent. It presents a cognizable legal theory
23
24
DKT. #42 - 4
1
supported by factual allegations that raise its right to relief against them above the speculative
2
level. 3M’s and NorthStar’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is DENIED.
3
C.
Venue.
4
TC Heartland re-explained that for patent-infringement actions against domestic
5
corporations, venue is proper (1) where the defendant is incorporated or (2) where the defendant
6
has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. See 2017
7
U.S. LEXIS 3213, *14; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Westech concedes its complaint, filed before TC Heartland, does not satisfy TC
8
9
Heartland’s venue requirements. It acknowledges 3M and NorthStar are incorporated in
10
Delaware and Massachusetts, respectively, but claims if the Court grants it leave to amend, it can
11
demonstrate each has a regular and established place of business here. Westech says it will allege
12
3M maintains three offices here1, 3M is registered in Washington as a foreign corporation, and
13
3M and NorthStar each have sales representatives in the State. 3M and NorthStar argue the Court
14
should deny Westech leave to amend its complaint (and instead grant their motion for dismissal)
15
because amendment would be futile; it does not own, maintain, or use the offices Westech claims
16
it does, and Westech’s other allegations could not raise to the level of a “permanent and
17
continuous presence” in the district.2
18
The Court agrees with 3M that, standing alone, having a sales presence in a district does
19
not confer jurisdiction over a defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). To have a “regular and
20
established place of business” in the Western District, 3M must have more contact with it than
21
22
23
24
1
Westech identifies 600 Ericksen Ave, NE, Ste. 200, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2875; 21312 30th Dr. SE, Ste.
1109, Bothell, WA 98021-7010; and 3000 Northup Way, Bellevue, WA, 98004 as 3M’s “business locations” in the
Western District of Washington.
2
Westech’s motion to strike portions of 3M’s and NorthStar’s reply is DENIED.
DKT. #42 - 5
1
simply doing business there. See Knapp-Monarch Co. v. Casco Prod. Corp., 342 F.2d 622, 624
2
(7th Cir. 1965). The mere presence of sales representatives is insufficient too. See IPCO Hosp.
3
Supply Corp. (Whaledent Int’l Div.) v. Les Fils D’Auguste Maillefer S.A., 446 F.Supp. 206, 208
4
(S.D.N.Y. 1978). An allegation that 3M maintains “business locations” in the district might make
5
jurisdiction over it proper, depending on the building type and the operations conducted therein
6
(such as whether it’s a sales office, storage facility, distribution center, etc.).
7
Because it is possible Westech can amend its complaint to allege venue is proper here,
8
the Court GRANTS it leave to amend. 3M’s and NorthStar’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule
9
12(b)(3) is accordingly DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
10
11
II.
CONCLUSION
Westech’s complaint sufficiently puts the defendants on notice of its claims against them,
12
but after TC Heartland, it fails to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. If Westech can amend its
13
complaint, consistent with its Rule 11 obligations, to allege venue is proper in this district, it
14
shall do so within 30 days. 3M’s and NorthStar’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) [Dkt.
15
#42] is accordingly DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Their motion under Rule 12(b)(6) is
16
DENIED.
17
Dated this 7th day of August, 2017.
19
A
20
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
18
21
22
23
24
DKT. #42 - 6
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?