Fuzzysharp Technologies Incorporated v. Nvidia Corporation, No. 3:2012cv06375 - Document 42 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2013)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fuzzysharp Technologies Incorporated v. Nvidia Corporation Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 10 NVIDIA CORPORATION, ECF No. 31 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 12-cv-06375-JST 12 13 In this action for patent infringement, Defendant NVIDIA moves under Federal Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss FuzzySharp’s claims for willful infringement of two patents. 15 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 16 17 I. A. 18 BACKGROUND The Parties and Claims1 FuzzySharp alleges that NVIDIA infringes two of its patents. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 19 1. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679 (“the ’679 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 20 6,618,047 (“the ’047 patent”), both of which are titled “Visibility Calculations for 3D Computer 21 Graphics.” Id. ¶ 6. FuzzySharp asserts two claims in the FAC. In “Count One,” FuzzySharp alleges that 22 23 NVIDIA engaged in “willful infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’679 Patent pursuant to 35 24 U.S.C. § 271(a) by selling, and offering to sell Graphic Processors Units capable of performing 25 26 27 28 1 The Court accepts the following allegations as true for the purpose of resolving this motion. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996) (“All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”) (citation omitted). Dockets.Justia.com 1 occlusion culling and the like during the computer graphics rendering process.” Id. ¶ 17. 2 FuzzySharp further alleges that it “provid[ed] NVIDIA with good notice that it was and is engaged 3 in patent infringement on the patents-in-suit” when it “sued NVIDIA on the same patents-in-suit” 4 in this district on September 10, 2010. Id. ¶ 15. In Count Two, FuzzySharp incorporates by reference the allegations supporting Count 5 6 One. This claim is identical in all respects to the first claim with two exceptions. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. 7 First, the allegations in this count concern the “’0479 Patent.” Id. ¶ 19. Second, the allegations 8 concern the infringing conduct of “Defendant Intel.” Id. 9 B. Procedural History On April 17, 2013, the Court dismissed each of the claims in the original complaint with 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 leave to amend. ECF No. 28. With respect to Count One, the Court concluded that FuzzySharp’s 12 allegations were insufficient to state a claim for either indirect infringement or willful 13 infringement. Id. at 2-4. Specifically, the Court held that FuzzySharp’s allegations pertaining to 14 willfulness were deficient because FuzzySharp did not specify whether a lawsuit it previously 15 filed against NVIDIA concerned either of the patents at issue. Id. at 4. With respect to Count Two, the Court concluded that FuzzySharp’s claims for direct, 16 17 indirect, and willful infringement were subject to dismissal because they concerned Intel, which is 18 not a party to this action, and the “’0479 patent,” which is not a patent-in-suit. Id. 19 C. 20 21 22 Jurisdiction The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). II. LEGAL STANDARD A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 23 is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims in the complaint. “To survive a motion 25 to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to 26 relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 27 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 28 2 1 misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and internal quotation 2 marks omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 3 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. When dismissing a complaint, the court must grant 4 leave to amend unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. 5 Lucas v. Dep’t of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). The district court, however, has 6 “broad” discretion to deny leave to amend “where plaintiff has previously amended the 7 complaint.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). III. 8 9 A. DISCUSSION Claim for Willful Infringement of the ’679 Patent NVIDIA moves to dismiss count one of the complaint, which is for willful infringement of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the ’679 patent, on the grounds that FuzzySharp alleges “ongoing infringement of expired patents” 12 and that FuzzySharp has not pleaded facts supporting a claim for willful infringement. Mot. at 2- 13 3. 14 FuzzySharp opposes the motion, arguing that claims for willful infringement are governed 15 by Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not by the pleading standards of Twombly 16 and Iqbal. With respect to NVIDIA’s contention that the complaint lacks sufficient allegations to 17 support a claim for willful infringement, FuzzySharp argues that “NVIDIA has clarified” the issue 18 of willful infringement “by admitting that [sic] at page 3 of its Brief that FuzzySharp previously 19 sued on the same patents.” Opp’n at 3. 20 1. 21 The first issue the Court must address is whether claims for willful infringement are 22 governed by the pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly, as NVIDIA argues, or by the standard 23 in Form 18, as FuzzySharp contends. 24 Claims for Willful Infringement Are Not Governed by Form 18 The Court concludes that claims for willful infringement are governed by the standards in 25 Iqbal and Twombly and not by the standard in Form 18. While the Federal Circuit recently held 26 that the sufficiency of a claim for “direct infringement is to be measured by the specificity 27 required by Form 18,” this holding is limited to claims for which there are sample pleadings in the 28 3 1 Appendix of Forms. In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 2 1323, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The Forms are controlling only for causes of action for which there 3 are sample pleadings.”). Because there is no sample pleading in the Appendix of Forms for claims 4 for willful infringement, a claim for willful infringement is not governed by any of the Forms, 5 including Form 18. That claim is governed instead by the pleading requirements promulgated by 6 the Supreme Court. See id. at 1337. Indeed, courts in this district routinely analyze claims for 7 willful infringement under the pleading standards in Iqbal and Twombly notwithstanding the 8 Federal Circuit’s holding in In re Bill of Lading. See, e.g., Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9 11-cv-01079 SBA, 2012 WL 5940782, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012). 2. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 The Court now turns to the question of whether FuzzySharp’s allegations are sufficient to 12 13 FuzzySharp States a Claim for Willful Infringement withstand NVIDIA’s motion. The bar set by the Federal Circuit for stating a claim for willful infringement is not high. 14 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that a plaintiff “more than sufficient[ly]” states a claim for 15 willful infringement when he alleges (1) infringement of the patent-in-suit; and (2) pre-filing 16 “knowledge” of the patent-in-suit by the defendant. See Mitutoyo Corp. v. Cent. Purchasing, 17 LLC, 499 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 18 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “a willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint 19 must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused infringer’s pre-filing conduct”). The 20 “knowledge” element can be satisfied by averring facts showing that the defendant knew of the 21 existence of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing of the complaint. Id. (holding that factual details 22 showing knowledge of prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit “establish[]” knowledge of the 23 patent). 24 Here, FuzzySharp alleges that NVIDIA “is engaged in willful infringement” of the ’679 25 patent by selling products capable of performing the methods claimed in that patent. FAC ¶ 17. 26 FuzzySharp also alleges that it “sued NVIDIA on September 10, 2010, on the same patents-in-suit 27 in this Judicial District, thereby providing NVIDIA with good notice that it was and is engaged in 28 4 1 patent infringement of the patents-in-suit.” Id. ¶ 15. On their face, these allegations satisfy both 2 of the requisite elements for stating a claim for willful infringement. 3 4 5 Nevertheless, NVIDIA argues that this claim is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for three reasons. First, NVIDIA argues that the claim should be dismissed because FuzzySharp’s allegation 6 that it sued NVIDIA in this district on September 10, 2010, is “inaccurate,” as “no such lawsuit” 7 was filed in this district on that date. Mot. at 8. The Court concludes that the claim cannot be 8 dismissed on this basis, because the determination of the date on which NVIDIA became aware of 9 the ’679 patent requires a factual inquiry that is beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss. Notably, NVIDIA does not dispute that it had knowledge of the ’679 patent or that FuzzySharp sued 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 NVIDIA for patent infringement of the ’679 patent in this district prior to the filing of this action. 12 Second, NVIDIA argues that FuzzySharp has not and cannot plead facts showing that 13 NVIDIA “acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a 14 valid patent” because a judge in another case “held some of the asserted claims invalid less than 15 one month after FuzzySharp first sued NVIDIA.” ECF No. 131 at 3, 9. This argument also is 16 insufficient to dismiss the claim, as allegations pertaining to an “objectively high likelihood” of 17 infringement are not required to survive a motion to dismiss. As discussed above, the only two 18 elements required to state a claim for willful infringement are infringement and knowledge of the 19 asserted patents. The “objectively high likelihood” of infringement requirement comes into play 20 later in the litigation. Indeed, to prevail on a claim for willful infringement, “a patentee must show 21 by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood 22 that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. 23 Gore & Assoc., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks 24 omitted) (emphasis added). In determining a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court does not 25 consider evidence pertaining to the defendant’s objective knowledge of its infringement, because 26 such evidence must be analyzed in conjunction with the defenses available to the defendant, which 27 are not at issue in a 12(b)(6) motion. See id. at 106 (holding that the determination of whether the 28 5 1 defendant acted despite an objectively high likelihood of infringement “entails an objective 2 assessment of potential defenses based on the risk presented by the patent”). Finally, NVIDIA argues that this claim must be dismissed as a matter of law because 3 4 FuzzySharp alleges “only ongoing infringement of patents that expired nearly six months before 5 the lawsuit was filed.” Mot. at 7. The Court concludes that the pre-suit expiration of a patent is not dispositive of a claim for 7 willful infringement. Indeed, “an expired patent may form the basis of an action for past damages 8 subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286.” Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis 9 Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Here, 10 NVIDIA has not shown that this action was filed more than six years after the patents-in-suit 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 6 expired. Additionally, the question of whether the alleged infringement occurred “during the term 12 of the patent” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 271 is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on a 13 motion to dismiss. Accordingly, NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss this claim is DENIED. 14 15 16 B. Claim for Willful Infringement of the ’047 Patent NVIDIA moves to dismiss count two of the complaint, which is for willful infringement of 17 the ’047 patent, on the ground that this claim alleges the infringement of an “unidentified ‘0479 18 patent by Defendant Intel,” which is not a party to this action. Mot. at 3 (internal quotation marks 19 omitted). NVIDA argues that because these deficiencies were identified in the Court’s order of 20 April 17, 2013, FuzzySharp should not be afforded yet another opportunity to amend the claim. 21 Id. at 3. 22 23 24 FuzzySharp’s only response is that “[t]he error in Count Two is serious and acknowledged.” Opp’n at 2. The Court concludes that the dismissal with prejudice of this claim is warranted given that 25 the Court previously granted FuzzySharp leave to amend the complaint to correct the allegations 26 pertaining to the “’0479 patent” and “Defendant Intel,” neither of which is involved in this action. 27 See Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the 28 6 1 district court has “broad” discretion to deny leave to amend “where plaintiff has previously 2 amended the complaint”). 3 Accordingly, NVIDIA’s motion is GRANTED with respect to this claim. IV. 4 5 CONCLUSION NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. NVIDIA’s 6 motion to dismiss FuzzySharp’s willful infringement claim as to the ’679 patent is DENIED, and 7 it is GRANTED with respect to FuzzySharp’s willful infringement claim as to the ’047 patent. 8 The latter claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 4, 2013 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
