throbber
Case 3:22-cv-07611-WHA Document 31 Filed 12/23/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
` 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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket