Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al, No. 3:2009cv05659 - Document 236 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MAXCHIP'S MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Alsup granting in part and denying in part 158 Motion to Dismiss (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al Doc. 236 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. C 09-05659 WHA ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MAXCHIP’S MOTION TO DISMISS v. UPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. / INTRODUCTION 18 In this patent and copyright infringement action, defendant Maxchip Electronics 19 Corporation moves to dismiss all remaining claims against it for inadequate pleading pursuant to 20 FRCP 12(b)(6). This order partially grants Maxchip’s motion to dismiss. 21 STATEMENT 22 The operative complaint in this action was filed by the Taiwanese company Richtek 23 Technology Corporation and its wholly-owned United States subsidiary, Richtek USA, Inc. The 24 complaint named seventeen individuals and five companies as defendants, and alleged seven 25 claims for relief in total. After the first round of motions to dismiss, all claims against fourteen 26 Taiwanese individuals were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and all claims for breach 27 of contract and trade-secret misappropriation were dismissed for lack of subject-matter 28 jurisdiction. The four claims that now remain in the action accuse all defendants of infringing Dockets.Justia.com 1 three United States patents (counts 1–3) and various United States copyrights (count 7) that 2 belong to Richtek Technology. Because Richtek USA was a complaining plaintiff only for the 3 trade-secret-misappropriation claim, which was dismissed, Richtek USA is no longer a party to 4 this action (Dkt. Nos. 165, 212). Technology, along with Powerchip Technology Corporation and uPI Semiconductor Corporation 7 (both Taiwanese companies), “devised a complex and elaborate scheme to steal, plunder, and 8 cart-away Richtek’s invaluable trade secret and confidential information” (Dkt. No. 79 ¶ 62). 9 Using proprietary documents and information stolen from their former employer, the individual 10 defendants allegedly designed competing power-management products that infringed plaintiffs’ 11 For the Northern District of California The factual theory of Richtek’s complaint is that Taiwanese former employees of Richtek 6 United States District Court 5 intellectual property rights. Defendant uPI allegedly then developed and sold these products in 12 conjunction with other defendants. Richtek claims that it has been injured by sales of these 13 power-management products to customers in California and the United States. 14 Defendant Maxchip now brings a motion to dismiss all remaining claims against it for 15 failure to state a claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Maxchip is incorporated in Taiwan and has its 16 principal place of business in Taiwan; Richtek alleges that Maxchip was spun off from 17 Powerchip in 2008 (Dkt. No. 79 ¶¶ 5–6). Maxchip is alleged to manufacture infringing power- 18 management products (ibid. ¶ 36). Richtek accuses Maxchip of infringing its patents directly by 19 making these products for sale in the United States and indirectly by inducing defendant uPI to 20 sell these products in the United States (id. ¶¶ 82, 90, 98). Maxchip also is alleged to have had 21 access to Richtek’s copyrighted works and, without permission, to have “made unauthorized 22 copies, prepared derivative works and distributed copies of” these works that are substantially 23 similar to the protected works (id. ¶ 77–79). No accused products or works are specifically 24 identified in the complaint, and no further information is provided regarding the role Maxchip 25 plays in the accused manufacturing and distribution process. Richtek has set forth more specific 26 descriptions and allegations only in its briefs and declarations opposing the instant motion to 27 dismiss. This order follows full briefing and a hearing on the motion. 28 2 1 ANALYSIS 2 Defendant Maxchip moves to dismiss all claims against it for failure to state a claim upon 3 which relief can be granted pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). This motion is GRANTED IN PART AND 4 DENIED IN PART. 5 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims 6 alleged in the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th 7 Cir. 1995). All material allegations of the complaint are taken as true and considered in the light 8 most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ibid. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) 9 motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be 12 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 13 U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (citations omitted). 14 Although materials outside of the pleadings generally should not be considered without 15 converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment, a district court may consider all 16 materials submitted as part of the complaint, including documents to which the complaint 17 specifically refers, even if they are not physically appended to the complaint. Hal Roach Studios, 18 Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). The complaint 19 currently operative in this action is the third amended complaint, which was filed on 20 September 28, 2010.1 Copies of the three asserted patents and various copyright registrations are 21 appended to this complaint as exhibits (Dkt. No. 79). The sufficiency of the patent and copyright 22 claims will be considered in turn. 23 A. Patent Claims for Relief 24 Counts 1–3 of the operative complaint accuse Maxchip of patent infringement. 25 Section 271(a) of the United States Patent Act states that “whoever without authority makes, uses, 26 offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United 27 28 1 Richtek has filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint; a hearing on that pending motion is scheduled for February 10, 2011. 3 1 States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 2 35 U.S.C. 271(a). A complaint for patent infringement should identify the patents in dispute, 3 allege ownership of them, and allege the act that constitutes infringement. See Lans v. Digital 4 Equip. Corp., 252 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 5 Richtek’s third amended complaint does so. The complaint identifies the three patents 6 that Maxchip is accused of infringing, and a certified copy of each patent is appended to the 7 complaint (Dkt. No. 79 Exh. 1–3). The complaint also alleges that Richtek Technology 8 Corporation “is the owner of all right and title” to these three patents (ibid. ¶¶ 31–33). Finally, 9 the complaint alleges acts that constitute infringement — manufacturing infringing powermanagement products and inducing uPI to sell these products in the United States (id. ¶¶ 36, 82, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 90, 98). Taken together, these allegations state a plausible claim for entitlement to relief 12 sufficient to pass muster under Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny. 13 Maxchip’s argument that these allegations amount to no more than the type of conclusory 14 statements and labels that the Supreme Court deemed inadequate is unpersuasive. Maxchip 15 makes much of the fact that the complaint fails to accuse specific Maxchip products, but Maxchip 16 does not cite any binding authority for such a requirement. Moreover, the complaint identifies the 17 category of Maxchip products that are accused: “power-management products.” Given this 18 product-type description, Richtek’s pleadings that Maxchip manufactures products that infringe 19 three specific Richtek patents is not “bereft of any meaningful facts” as Maxchip claims (Br. 8). 20 Even if only by a small margin, Richtek’s patent-infringement claims against Maxchip rise above 21 the level of “labels and conclusions” and “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 22 action.” Maxchip’s motion to dismiss the patent infringement claims (counts 1–3) is DENIED. 23 B. Copyright Claim for Relief 24 Richtek’s copyright-infringement claim against Maxchip, on the other hand, does not 25 make the cut. Maxchip rightly notes a complete lack of particularity in the amended complaint 26 with respect to the copyright-infringement claim, and Richtek fails to identify any pleadings that 27 are sufficient to state this claim. 28 4 1 In order to establish copyright infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership 2 of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Rice v. 3 Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2003). As to the second element, Richtek’s 4 complaint makes only conclusory statements, reciting the statutory acts that constitute copyright 5 infringement without providing any factual allegations to identify Maxchip’s allegedly infringing 6 acts or works. The complaint describes the works whose copyrights are allegedly infringed (“data 7 schematics, software code, mask works, data sheets and other copyrightable expressions related to 8 Richtek’s proprietary design-in process for semiconductors”) but provides no such description of 9 the acts or works that allegedly infringe them (Dkt. No. 79 ¶ 75). The closest the complaint comes — and the only portion of the complaint Richtek identifies as pleading acts and works by 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Maxchip that infringe its copyrights — are paragraphs 77 and 78: 12 13 14 15 16 17 77. Upon information and belief, Defendants uPI, Powerchip, Maxchip, Silicon Xtal, XYZ Companies 1–4, the Former Richtek Employees, Former AMD Employee Ming Chen, and John Does 1–10 have had access to Richtek’s Copyright Works. 78. Upon information and belief, Defendants uPI, Powerchip, Maxchip, Silicon Xtal, XYZ Companies 1–4, Former Richtek Employees, Former AMD Employee Ming Chen, and John Does 1–10 have made unauthorized copies, prepared derivative works and distributed copies of Richtek’s copyright works (“the Accused Works”) all without Richtek’s permission. 18 (Dkt. No. 79 ¶¶ 77–78). Richtek’s argument that these paragraphs put Maxchip on notice of its 19 copyright infringement contentions is laughable. Unlike the patent infringement pleadings, these 20 paragraphs do not identify even a category of works or acts by Maxchip accused of infringement. 21 Bald recitations of legal conclusion like those contained in these paragraphs do not state a claim 22 upon which relief can be granted. Maxchip’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claim 23 against it (count 7) is GRANTED. 24 25 CONCLUSION Maxchip’s motion to dismiss all claims against it for failure to state a claim upon which 26 relief can be granted is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Maxchip’s motion is GRANTED 27 as to the copyright infringement claim but DENIED as to the patent infringement claims. 28 5 1 Within FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS after motion practice resumes in this action, plaintiffs 2 may file a motion on the normal 35-day track seeking leave to file amended pleadings that might 3 save the dismissed claim. A proposed amended complaint must be appended to such a motion, 4 and the motion should explain clearly why the amended complaint overcomes the deficiencies 5 stated herein. If the proposed amendments do not address these deficiencies, they will not be 6 allowed. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 18, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
