`
`
`
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
` michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
` Tigran Guledjian (Bar No. 207613)
` tigranguledjian@quinnemanuel.com
` Christopher A. Mathews (Bar No. 144021)
` chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
`Telephone:
`(213) 443-3000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 443-3100
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Cribl, Inc. and Clint Sharp
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`SPLUNK INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`CRIBL, INC., et al.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date: March 23, 2023
`Time:
`8:00 A.M.
`Crtrm.: 12
`Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
` DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 23, 2023 at 8:00 a.m., in Courtroom 12 of the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, 50
`
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, defendants Cribl, Inc. and Clint Sharp will move
`
`this Court for an order dismissing Counts I-V, parts of Count VI, and Count IX of the Complaint
`
`(ECF No. 1) filed by Splunk Inc.
`
`This motion is made pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`and is based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the filings in this action;
`
`and any such additional material or argument as may be submitted to the Court before its decision.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`Defendants seek an order dismissing Counts I-VI and IX of the Complaint with prejudice
`
`for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1. Whether Splunk’s claims for willful and indirect infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents should be dismissed because the Complaint fails to plead (i) knowledge of the patents,
`
`(ii) knowledge of infringement, (iii) specific intent, or (iv) substantial non-infringing uses.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Splunk’s claims for infringement of the Asserted Patents should be
`
`dismissed because the claims of the Asserted Patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`3.
`
`Whether Splunk’s claims for contributory and induced copyright infringement
`
`should be dismissed because the Complaint fails to plead the required knowledge and intent.
`
`4.
`
`Whether Splunk’s claims for violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202 should be dismissed
`
`because the Complaint fails to describe the alleged copyright management information and
`
`alterations with adequate specificity and does not sufficiently plead the required intent.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`Splunk’s Willfulness and Indirect Infringement Claims Should be
`Dismissed ...................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Splunk Fails Plausibly to Plead that Cribl Knew of the Asserted
`Patents ............................................................................................................1
`
`Splunk Does Not Properly Plead That Cribl Knew of Infringement .............2
`
`Splunk Fails Sufficiently to Allege the Requisite Specific Intent ..................3
`
`Splunk Inadequately Pleads the Lack of Substantial Non-Infringing
`Uses ................................................................................................................4
`
`II.
`
`Section 101 Requires Dismissal of Splunk’s Patent Claims ......................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The ’206 Patent Claims are Invalid under Section 101 ..................................6
`
`The ’443 Patent Claims are Invalid under Section 101 ................................10
`
`The ’438 Patent Claims are Invalid under Section 101 ................................14
`
`The ’312 Patent Claims are Invalid under Section 101 ................................17
`
`The ’467 Patent Claims are Invalid under Section 101 ................................21
`
`Splunk’s Indirect Copyright Infringement Claims Should Be Dismissed ...............24
`
`Splunk’s DMCA Claim Against Mr. Sharp Should Be Dismissed ..........................24
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
` 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
` 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`Aftechmobile Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
` No. 19-cv-05903-JST, 2020 WL 6129139 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020),
`aff’d, 853 F. App’x 669 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................... 5
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
` 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ............................................................................................................ passim
`
`Appistry, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` 195 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2016), aff’d, 676 F. App’x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............ 15
`
`Apple v. Princeps,
` Case No. 19-cv-06352-EMC, 2020 WL 1478350 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020) ............................. 5
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC,
` 915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
` 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, No. 18-415 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2020) .......................... 6
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 487 F. Supp. 3d 870 (C.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, 831 F. App’x 502 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................... 9
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
` 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 10, 19, 20
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`California Beach Co., LLC v. Exqline Inc.,
` No. C 20-01994 WHA, 2020 WL 6544457 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2020) ........................................ 2
`
`CAP Co., Ltd. v. McAfee Inc.,
` No. 14–cv–05068–JD, 2015 WL 3945875 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) ........................................ 4
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
` 920 F.3d 759 (Fed Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`813 F. App’x 495 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Coho Licensing LLC v. Glam Media, Inc.,
` No. C 14-01576 JSW, 2017 WL 6210882 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017), aff’d, 710 F.
`App’x 892 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................................... 16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
` 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.,
` No. 19-CV-07650-HSG, 2021 WL 879798 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) ....................................... 25
`
`Delphix Corp. v. Actifo, Inc.,
` No. C 13–4613 RS 2014 WL 4628490 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014) ........................................ 2, 24
`
`Device Enhancement LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` 189 F. Supp. 3d 392 (D. Del. 2016) ..................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
` 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
` 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 8, 10, 12, 13, 22
`
`Epikhin v. Game Insight N. Am.,
` No. 14-cv-04383-LHK, 2015 WL 2412357 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................... 24
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TLC Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
` 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
` 137 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2015), aff'd, 677 F. App’x. 679 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................. 10
`
`Finjan v. Juniper,
` No. C 17-05659 WHA, 2018 WL 905909 (N.D. Cal. Feb, 14, 2018) ..................................... 2, 3
`
`Fluidigm Corp. v. IONpath, Inc.,
`No. C 19-05639 WHA 2020 WL 408988 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020) ................................ 1, 3, 4, 5
`
`Free Speech Systems, LLC v. Menzel,
` 390 F. Supp. 3d 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ..................................................................................... 25
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
` 996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
` 563 U.S. 754 (2011) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Google LLC,
` No. 18-cv-06137-HSG, 2019 WL 1455336 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019) ......................................... 4
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission,
` 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
` 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 13
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp. (Capital One Financial),
` 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................... 6, 9, 20, 23
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
` 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 18
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`234 F. Supp. 3d 601 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
` 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 12, 19
`
`Kilina Am., Inc. v. SA & PW, Inc,
` No. CV-19-03786-CJC-KSX, 2019 WL 8685066 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019) .......................... 24
`
`Logan v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
` No. 22-CV-01847-CRB, 2022 WL 14813836 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022) ................................. 25
`
`Luvdarts, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
` 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` No. C 20-08103 WHA, 2021 WL 4685306 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) ................................. 1, 2, 3
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
` 566 U.S. 66 (2012) ........................................................................................................... 7, 10, 20
`
`Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd.,
` 721 Fed. App’x. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 14, 20
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
` No. 14-CV-01622-HSG, 2015 WL 1535328 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) ..................................... 12
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 684 F. App’x. 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................. 7, 8
`
`Parker v. Flook,
` 437 U.S. 584 (1978) ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`People.ai, Inc. v. SetSail Techs., Inc.,
` 575 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ..................................................................... 7, 19, 22, 23
`
`People.ai, Inc. v. SetSail Techs., Inc.,
` No. C 20-09148 WHA, 2021 WL 2333880 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2021) ..................................... 2, 3
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n,
` 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`Procter & Gamble Co. v. QuantifiCare Inc.,
` 288 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`Purepredictive, Inc. v. H2O.AI, Inc.,
` No. 17-cv-03049-WHO, 2017 WL 3721480 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2017) ..................................... 7
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
` 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................... 10, 12, 18
`
`Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
` 868 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017), reversed and remanded on other grounds,
`139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
` 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................ 9, 10, 16
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
` 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2000 (2018) .................................. 14, 20
`
`SellPoolSuppliesOnline.com, LLC v. Ugly Pools Arizona, Inc.,
` 804 F. App’x 668 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 25
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
` 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 23
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC,
` 591 F. Supp. 3d 638, 647 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ......................................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` 839 F.3d 1138, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Takeda Pharms. v. West-Ward Pharm.,
` 785 F.3d 625 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp.,
` 249 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
` 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
` 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
` No. C 18-00359 WHA, 2018 WL 2047553 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018) ............................. 2, 3, 4, 5
`
`VeriPath, Inc. v. Didomi,
` 842 F. App’x 640 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
` 411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff'd, 828 F. App'x 717 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......... 11, 12, 22
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,
` 887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 13, 14
`
`
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202 ....................................................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`Splunk’s Willfulness and Indirect Infringement Claims Should be Dismissed
`
`A.
`
`Splunk Fails Plausibly to Plead that Cribl Knew of the Asserted Patents
`
`Splunk’s willful and indirect infringement claims should be dismissed because Splunk has
`
`not pled pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents.1 See Sonos, Inc. v Google LLC, 591 F. Supp.
`
`3d 638, 647 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (“Like willful infringement, both forms of indirect infringement —
`
`induced and contributory infringement — require knowledge of the patent and knowledge of
`
`infringement”); Fluidigm Corp. v. IONpath, Inc., No. C 19-05639 WHA 2020 WL 408988, at *5
`
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020) (plausible allegation of pre-suit willful infringement requires pre-suit
`
`knowledge of the patents). Splunk alleges “Cribl has been aware of the Patents-in-Suit, or, at a
`
`minimum, willfully blind to their existence, since the [sic] approximately the issue date of those
`
`patents or the founding of Cribl, whichever is later.”2 Compl. ¶115. Splunk fails to allege it sent
`
`Cribl a notice letter, much less that anyone at Cribl was personally aware of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Rather, it merely implies Cribl somehow gained knowledge of the Asserted Patents because Cribl’s
`
`co-founders and some employees formerly participated in Splunk’s patent program, even though
`
`none is a named inventor of any of the five Asserted Patents. Compl. ¶¶8, 90-92. That is insufficient
`
`to plausibly allege knowledge.
`
`Splunk attempts to circumvent the knowledge requirement by alleging “on information and
`
`belief, all Cribl employees who formerly worked for Splunk are well aware of Splunk’s extensive
`
`patent portfolio.” Compl. ¶93. Mere general knowledge of a patentee’s portfolio does not plausibly
`
`allege actual notice of a particular patent. See, e.g., MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C
`
`
`1 The five Asserted Patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 9,208,206 (’206 Patent), 9,762,443 (’443 Patent),
`10,805,438 (’438 Patent), 10,255,312 (’312 Patent), and 9,838,467 (’467 Patent)—are generally
`directed to aspects of capturing, analyzing, and displaying prior art sources of data.
`2 Splunk has also failed to plead facts raising a plausible inference that Cribl was willfully blind to
`the Asserted Patents (or their infringement) because it does not allege Cribl took any “deliberate
`actions to avoid confirming a high probability of wrongdoing” or “can almost be said to have
`actually known the critical facts.” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 769
`(2011); see Fluidigm, 2020 WL 408988, at *4 (“[T]he complaint’s allegations that defendant ‘knew
`and/or was willfully blind to the fact that it was inducing others, including customers…to
`infringe…’ is a legal conclusion to be drawn after alleging supporting facts and is ignored.”).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`20-08103 WHA, 2021 WL 4685306, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) (“Allegations of general
`
`knowledge of a patent family, or a patent portfolio, are insufficient to allege specific knowledge of
`
`a particular patent.”); Finjan v Juniper, No. C 17-05659 WHA, 2018 WL 905909, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Feb, 14, 2018) (finding the complaint deficient where it “merely assert[ed] in conclusory terms”
`
`awareness of plaintiff’s patent portfolio, but contained “no factual allegations that [defendant] had
`
`actual pre-suit knowledge of the eight patents-in-suit.”) (emphasis in original). Splunk’s own
`
`repeated use of “on information and belief” “undermines [its] argument that the facts it has pleaded
`
`are sufficient to support a plausible inference of pre-suit knowledge.” Delphix Corp. v. Actifo, Inc.,
`
`No. C 13-4613-RS, 2014 WL 4628490, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014); Compl. ¶¶5, 118.
`
`B.
`
`Splunk Does Not Properly Plead That Cribl Knew of Infringement
`
`Splunk’s willful and indirect infringement claims should be dismissed for the independent
`
`reason that Splunk fails plausibly to plead Cribl had pre-suit knowledge of infringement. See
`
`MasterObjects, 2021 WL 4685306, at *6 (failure to adequately plead defendant’s knowledge of
`
`infringement dooms pre-suit willfulness claims); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. C 18-00359
`
`WHA, 2018 WL 2047553, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018) (induced and contributory infringement
`
`requires “knowledge of the patent in suit and knowledge of patent infringement.”); California Beach
`
`Co. v. Exqline Inc., No. C 20-01994 WHA, 2020 WL 6544457, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2020)
`
`(claim for inducement requires plaintiff plausibly plead “the defendant knew of the patent, acted to
`
`induce another, knew the conduct it induced constituted direct infringement, and intended that
`
`result.”). As this Court has explained, “it is not plausible that every manufacturer, in the absence of
`
`a notice letter, would be aware of each and every patent that might claim some feature of its products.
`
`Willful infringement is the exception, not the rule.” Sonos, 591 F. Supp. 3d at 644. Similarly, Splunk
`
`implausibly implies, without any specific factual allegations, that Cribl has analyzed Splunk’s
`
`1000+ patent portfolio to determine that Cribl’s products infringe unspecified claims of the five
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`The Complaint additionally fails to plead that Cribl knew any third parties were directly
`
`infringing the Asserted Patents. “Bare allegations of knowledge of a patent do not support an
`
`inference of knowledge of alleged infringement.” People.ai, Inc. v. SetSail Techs., Inc., No. C 20-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`09148 WHA, 2021 WL 2333880, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2021). Splunk glosses over this failure
`
`by alleging that Cribl posted materials “instructing, encouraging, implementing, and/or directing
`
`others how to use Stream and Edge” through the publication of “instructions” on its website and
`
`YouTube. Compl. ¶141. However, this bare allegation fails to explain how providing these
`
`“instructions” led to Cribl’s knowledge that others would infringe the Asserted Patents by following
`
`them, in light of the myriad ways Cribl’s products can be used. Splunk’s contributory infringement
`
`claims are also improperly conclusory and vague with respect to pre-filing knowledge of third-party
`
`infringement. See id. ¶¶141, 168, 197, 220, 257 (merely alleging “Cribl sells Stream and Edge to
`
`customers who use Stream and Edge in an infringing manner”). More is required to plausibly allege
`
`knowledge of infringement. Uniloc, 2018 WL 2047553, at *4.
`
`C.
`
`Splunk Fails Sufficiently to Allege the Requisite Specific Intent
`
`Splunk’s willfulness and inducement claims fail plausibly to allege Cribl knew of the
`
`Asserted Patents and, therefore, plausibly plead Cribl had a specific intent to infringe. “[W]illfulness
`
`requires pleading more than knowledge of the patent and direct infringement — it requires a specific
`
`intent to infringe.” MasterObjects, 2021 WL 4685306, *6 (not reaching specific intent where no
`
`pre-suit knowledge of infringement); Finjan, 2018 WL 905909, at *4-5 (inducement also requires
`
`“specific intent to encourage another's infringement” but deficient pre-suit knowledge allegations
`
`“alone require[] dismissal of…[plaintiff’s] induced infringement claims”).
`
`Further, Splunk’s inducement claims also should be dismissed for failure to plead Cribl
`
`specifically intended for its customers to infringe. Fluidigm, 2020 WL 408988, at *3 (citing In re
`
`Bill of Lading Transmission, 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Induced infringement “requires
`
`more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement. Beyond that threshold
`
`knowledge, the inducer must have an affirmative intent to cause direct infringement.” DSU Med.
`
`Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc). Here, however, Splunk only
`
`makes conclusory allegations, merely asserting Cribl “has committed and continues to commit
`
`affirmative acts that cause infringement of one or more claims of the [Asserted Patent] with
`
`knowledge of the [Asserted Patent] and knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts
`
`constitute infringement of one or more claims of the [Asserted Patent].” See Compl. ¶¶140, 167,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`196, 219, 256. These vague allegations simply recite legal elements, and fail to articulate facts that
`
`Cribl knew both: (1) the alleged acts infringed the Asserted Patents, and (2) the promotion of its
`
`products would induce or encourage others to infringe the Asserted Patents. Moreover, the
`
`Complaint fails to provide any specific allegations that map the instructions Cribl allegedly provides
`
`to the performance of the claimed steps of the Asserted Patents. See Fluidigm, 2020 WL 408988, at
`
`*3 (“The question is not just whether [product] instructions describe the infringing mode, but
`
`whether the instructions teach an infringing use of the device such that [a court may] infer from
`
`those instructions an affirmative intent to infringe the patent”) (citing Takeda Pharms. v. West-Ward
`
`Pharm., 785 F.3d 625, 631 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`Other cases in this District have found such allegations insufficient. In Uniloc, the court
`
`found “training videos, demonstrations, brochures, and installation and user guides,” and
`
`defendant’s websites, listed “with no explanation as to what specific site content allegedly induc[ed]
`
`infringement, or how [they infringed],” were “vague and conclusory allegations…[that] do not
`
`amount to factual content supporting any reasonable inference” that defendant possessed specific
`
`intent. 2018 WL 2047553, at *4; see also CAP Co., Ltd. v. McAfee Inc., No. 14–cv–05068–JD, 2015
`
`WL 3945875, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) (“passing references” to “user manual guides” and
`
`“support articles” “without ever saying what those materials contain [was] wholly inadequate for an
`
`inference of specific intent.”); Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Google LLC, No. 18-cv-06137-HSG,
`
`2019 WL 1455336, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019) (dismissing inducement claims where complaint
`
`referred to defendant’s materials without “detail[ing] how an end user would infringe [the asserted]
`
`patents by following instructions in the links provided in the complaint”) (emphasis in original).
`
`D.
`
`Splunk Inadequately Pleads the Lack of Substantial Non-Infringing Uses
`
`Splunk’s contributory infringement claims should be dismissed because Splunk has not
`
`sufficiently pled a lack of substantial non-infringing uses. Sonos, 591 F. Supp. 3d at 647 (patentee
`
`must allege accused product is not “a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for a
`
`substantial non-infringing use.”). For each Asserted Patent, Splunk alleges little more than a
`
`conclusory statement reciting legal elements. See Compl. ¶¶141, 168, 197, 220, 257 (alleging, e.g.,
`
`“Cribl has committed and continues to commit affirmative acts that contribute to the infringement
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-07611-WHA
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`by others, including, but not limited to, the sale, offer for sale, and/or import by Cribl of Stream and
`
`Edge in the United States, with knowledge of the [Asserted Patent] and knowledge that Stream and
`
`Edge have no substantial non-infringing uses.”). But as this Court has observed when dismissing
`
`similar contributory infringement claims, such “merely formulaic recitation[s] of Section 271(c)
`
`[are] not entitled to the presumption of truth.” Uniloc, 2018 WL 2047553, at *5.
`
`Splunk’s conclusory allegations that “Stream and Edge are especially made for or adapted
`
`for use to infringe, are not staple articles of commerce, and are not suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use” should be disregarded. As in Apple v. Princeps, Case No. 19-cv-06352-EMC, 2020
`
`WL 1478350, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020), Splunk fails to explain whether Cribl knew that the
`
`accused products are “specifically made and are not a staple article of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.” See Fluidigm, 2020 WL 408988, at *4 (“How this language shows
`
`defendant’s product cannot but infringe is unclear and never explained. Without such explanation,
`
`the conclusion of no non-infringing uses is implausible”) (emphasis in original).
`
`II.
`
`Section 101 Requires Dismissal of Splunk’s Patent Claims
`
`Courts determine Section 101 eligibility through a two-step test. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS
`
`Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014). At step one, the Court determines whether the claims are
`
`directed to an abstract idea despite their computer features. Id. at 218. This analysis depends on the
`
`language of the Asserted Claims themselves. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759,
`
`769 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In making this inquiry, the Court considers “whether the claims focus on the
`
`specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an
`
`‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Aftechmobile Inc. v.
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 19-cv-05903-JST, 2020 WL 6129139, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020)
`
`citation omitted), aff’d, 853 F. App’x 669 (Fed. Cir. 2021). A claim that could be performed by a
`
`human, exercising generic computer-implemented steps, is often abstract. Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Symantec”).
`
`At step two, the Court determines whether the claim elements, individually or collectively,
`
`add “significantly more” to the abstract idea—something “invent