Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`Sarah E. Piepmeier, Bar No. 227094
`SPiepmeier@perkinscoie.com
`Elise Edlin, Bar No. 293756
`EEdlin@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: +1.415.344.7000
`Facsimile: +1.415.344.7050
`
`Janice L. Ta (appearance pro hac vice)
`JTa@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`405 Colorado Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: +1.737.256.6100
`Facsimile: +1.737.256.6300
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NETFLIX, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`LAURI VALJAKKA,
`
` Case No. 4:22-cv-01490-JST
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S WILLFUL
`INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS FOR
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`Date: August 25, 2022
`Time: 2:00 PM
`Place: Courtroom 6
`Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ..........................................................................................1 
`
`Page
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................2 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................2 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................2 
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .........................................................................................................3 
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Valjakka’s Pre-Suit Willful Infringement Claims Should Be Dismissed
`Because Valjakka Fails to Plead That Netflix Had Sufficient Knowledge of
`Infringement or Intent to Infringe the ’167 Patent. ...................................................4 
`
`Valjakka’s Post-Suit Allegations of Willful Infringement Should Also Be
`Dismissed Because They Are Based Solely on Notice Provided by the
`Complaint. .................................................................................................................6 
`
`Valjakka’s Willful Infringement Allegations Should Be Dismissed with
`Prejudice. ...................................................................................................................7 
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................8 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Anderson v. Intel Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm.,
`No. 19-CV-04618-LHK, 2022 WL 74002 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2022).......................................7, 8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................................3
`
`Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co.,
`530 F. Supp. 3d 468 (D. Del. 2021) ............................................................................................5
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00528-ADA, 2022 WL 299733 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2022) ...................................5
`
`CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc.,
`Nos. 14–cv–05068–JD, 14–cv–05071–JD, 2015 WL 3945875 (N.D. Cal. June
`26, 2015) .....................................................................................................................................6
`
`Fluidigm Corp. v. IONpath, Inc.,
`No. C 19-05639 WHA, 2020 WL 408988 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020) .................................4, 5, 6
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C 20-08103 WHA, 2021 WL 4685306 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) ....................................4, 8
`
`Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel,
`726 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................4, 7
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`No. C 21-07559 WHA, 2022 WL 799367 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022) ...........................4, 5, 6, 7
`
`Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Test Sys., Inc.,
`No. CV 20-2713-GW-SHK, 2020 WL 8173024 (C.D. Cal. 2020) .........................................5, 6
`
`Välinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New Eng. Corp.,
`No. 16-1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2411218 (D. Del. May 29, 2018) .........................................4
`
`Välinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New Eng. Corp.,
`No. CV 16-1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 11013901 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2018) ..................................4
`
`Valjakka v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-00947 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 13, 2021) ............................................................................3
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ......................................................................................3
`
`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-
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`Wrinkl, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-1345-RGA, 2021 WL 4477022 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2021) ..........................................7
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Del. 2021) ............................................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ..........................................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. .....................................................................................................................1
`
`RULES
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 25, 2022 at 2 pm, in Courtroom 6, Second Floor,
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay
`Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix” or “Defendant”) moves for an order
`dismissing the claims of willful infringement in Plaintiff Lauri Valjakka’s (“Valjakka” or
`“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 39. Netflix seeks an order dismissing
`Valjakka’s willful infringement allegations (SAC ¶¶ 20–22 and references to “willful infringement”
`in ¶ 26 and the Prayer for Relief) pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure for failure to state a claim. The issue to be decided is whether Valjakka’s SAC alleges
`sufficient facts to plead willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ’167 Patent”) under
`the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.
`
`Defendant’s motion is based on this notice of motion, the accompanying memorandum of
`points and authorities, the pleadings and other papers submitted in this action, any oral argument
`or other material that may come before the Court at hearing, as well as any additional matters as to
`which this Court may take judicial notice.
`
`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-
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Valjakka’s allegations of willful infringement, which relate solely to the ’167 Patent, are
`insufficient as a matter of law. Valjakka rests these serious allegations—and the entire basis for its
`willful infringement claims against Netflix—on the slender reed of a single letter sent to Netflix,
`over eight years ago, that contains no allegation of infringement. SAC at ¶¶ 20–22; SAC Exhibit
`D. Dkt. 39-1. Simply put, the letter fails to provide a factual basis for claims that Netflix had
`knowledge of infringement or a plausible inference that Netflix had the specific intent to infringe
`the ’167 Patent. And there are no other plausible allegations to support willfulness. Thus, because
`Valjakka failed to plead what is required to sustain a claim for willful infringement, those
`allegations must be dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Defendant Netflix is a U.S. subscription streaming service and production company
`headquartered in Los Gatos, California. Plaintiff and named inventor Lauri Valjakka is a citizen
`of Finland. SAC ¶ 1. Valjakka brought this suit in the Western District of Texas on September 13,
`2021, but the parties agreed to jointly transfer this case to the Northern District of California after
`Netflix filed a Motion to Dismiss for improper venue.
`Valjakka alleges that Netflix willfully infringes the ʼ167 Patent and seeks treble damages.1
`Valjakka pleads:
`
`Defendant knew that this conduct amounted to infringement because
`Defendant was aware of the patent and its strategic advantage to
`Defendant’s patent portfolio from the information provided in a
`October 2014 letter [sic] to Defendant’s headquarters in Los Gatos,
`California.
`
`SAC at ¶ 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
`
`
`
`Defendant has known that its activities concerning the Accused
`Products could infringe one or more claims of the [’]167 Patent since
`
`1 Valjakka does not allege willful infringement of United States Patent No. 10,726,102 (“the ’102
`Patent”) or indirect infringement of either Asserted Patent. Valjakka previously alleged induced
`and contributory infringement of the ’102 Patent, but its Second Amended Complaint withdrew
`those conclusory and unsupported allegations.
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`SAC at ¶ 21.
`
`at least October 2014 when Lauri Valjakka as CEO of SC Intelligent
`Holding OY sent a letter via United States Postal Service Certified
`Mail to Gregory K. Peters, Chief Streaming and Partnerships Officer
`of Netflix, informing him of the ’167 Patent.
`
`Alternatively, if Defendant claims to not have knowledge of the
`[’]167 Patent by receiving the October 2014 letter delivered to
`Netflix’s headquarters, Defendant was willfully blind by taking
`deliberate action to avoid learning of the notice letter delivered to
`Defendant’s headquarters and addressed to one of Defendant’s Chief
`Officers.
`
`SAC at ¶ 22.
`While the letter attached as Exhibit D to Valjakka’s SAC mentions the ’167 Patent, it
`contains no allegations of infringement, fails to identify any Netflix product that allegedly infringes,
`and makes no request to cease and desist any allegedly infringing activity. SAC, Exhibit D at 1–2.
`The SAC is Valjakka’s third attempt at pleading willful infringement. Valjakka initially pleaded
`“[o]n information and belief, Defendant has known that its activities concerning the Accused
`Products infringed one or more claims of the [’]167 Patent since at least 2013.” Complaint for
`Patent Infringement, Valjakka v. Netflix, Inc., No. 21-cv-00947 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 13, 2021) at ¶
`21, ECF 1. In its First Amended Complaint, Valjakka pleaded “[o]n information and belief,
`Defendant has known that its activities concerning the Accused Products infringed one or more
`claims of the [’]167 Patent since at least October 2014.” First Amended Complaint For Patent
`Infringement, Valjakka v. Netflix, Inc., No. 21-cv-00947 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 3, 2022) at ¶22, ECF 14.
`On its third bite at the apple, Valjakka included the current allegations and attached the letter as
`Exhibit D to the SAC.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Valjakka’s SAC cannot survive a motion to dismiss because it fails to plead sufficient facts
`“to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 697 (2009)
`(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Such a
`dismissal is proper where, as here, there is a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of
`sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft
`Corp., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1109, 1112 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (internal citations omitted). A dismissal for
`
`-3-
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`failure to state a claim should be with prejudice where the plaintiff has previously amended its
`complaint, or where it is clear that the complaint cannot be saved by amendment. See Salameh v.
`Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124 at 1133 (9th Cir. 2013); see also MasterObjects, Inc. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. C 20-08103 WHA, 2021 WL 4685306, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021)
`(dismissal with prejudice where plaintiff “has twice amended its complaint to revise its willful
`infringement allegations. . . [and t]he second amended complaint fails to sufficiently address
`knowledge of infringement[, . . . a]ny further amendment is accordingly futile.”).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`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
`
`Valjakka’s Pre-Suit Willful Infringement Claims Should Be Dismissed
`Because Valjakka Fails to Plead That Netflix Had Sufficient Knowledge of
`Infringement or Intent to Infringe the ’167 Patent.
`Valjakka does not plausibly or sufficiently plead knowledge of infringement or intent to
`infringe the ’167 Patent. To sustain a willful infringement allegation, a plaintiff must assert that
`the alleged infringer had knowledge both of (1) the patent, and (2) its alleged infringement. See
`Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. C 21-07559 WHA, 2022 WL 799367, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16,
`2022). Specifically, any “allegations of an infringer’s knowledge of the patent and of infringement
`must raise a plausible inference that the defendant had the specific intent to infringe. Allegations
`of mere direct infringement are insufficient.” Id. at *3.2 Similarly, mere knowledge of the existence
`of an Asserted Patent is not enough. Id.; see also MasterObjects, 2021 WL 4685306, at *4
`(“allegations that a patent owner sent a letter merely notifying a third party of the existence of a
`particular patent, without accusing that third party of infringement, is, by itself, insufficient.”). To
`plead knowledge of infringement, or specific intent to infringe, based on correspondence between
`the parties, the correspondence must contain specific allegations of infringement. Fluidigm Corp.
`
`2 The Välinge test requires a plaintiff to plead facts showing that the accused infringer “(1) knew
`of the patent-in-suit; (2) after acquiring that knowledge, it infringed the patent; and (3) in doing so,
`it knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted to infringement of the patent.” Välinge
`Innovation AB v. Halstead New Eng. Corp., No. 16-1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2411218, at *13 (D.
`Del. May 29, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 16-1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL
`11013901 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2018). While the Northern District of California has not formally
`adopted the Välinge test used in many jurisdictions, the Sonos court cites Välinge favorably in
`summarizing the pleading requirement. See Sonos, 2022 WL 799367, at *3.
`
`
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`v. IONpath, Inc., No. C 19-05639 WHA, 2020 WL 408988, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020) (“The
`complaint does not plausibly allege any egregious conduct, nor does it plausibly allege knowledge
`of infringement. Patent owners did allegedly notify defendant of the ’104 Patent. But notably, the
`Complaint never alleges that the letter accused defendant of infringement, much less detailed how
`defendants allegedly infringed.”).3 Thus, the salient question is whether Valjakka pleaded
`sufficient facts alleging that its 2014 correspondence addressed to Netflix provided knowledge of
`the patent and of its infringement. Id; see Sonos, 2022 WL 799367, at *3.
`Valjakka’s pleading is plainly insufficient in this regard: The SAC contains no factual
`support that Netflix had knowledge of infringement or a specific intent to infringe the ’167 Patent.
`More specifically, Valjakka’s SAC asserts that Netflix “was aware of the [’167] patent and its
`strategic advantage to Defendant’s patent portfolio” based on information provided in a September
`29, 2014 letter that SC Intelligent Holding Oy sent to Netflix’s headquarters. See SAC at ¶ 20;
`SAC Exhibit D. But this is simply an allegation that Netflix was aware of the patent. To be clear,
`the pleading contains no facts connecting that alleged knowledge of the patent to the conclusory
`claim that Netflix “knew that this conduct amounted to infringement.” SAC at ¶ 20. Similarly,
`Valjakka’s allegation that Netflix has “known that its activities concerning the Accused Products
`could infringe one or more claims of the [’]167 Patent” is rank speculation, based solely on the
`mere mention of the patent, and not on any allegation that Netflix knew it was infringing or had a
`specific intent to infringe. SAC at ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Thus, the pleadings do not allege that
`the letter provided notice of 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
`
`
`3 See also, e.g. Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Test Sys., Inc., No. CV 20-2713-GW-SHK, 2020 WL
`8173024, at *3–5 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (applying the test for sufficiency of a letter to plead indirect
`infringement to willfulness claims: “a letter must include a specific charge of infringement and
`identify an accused product at issue in this case”); BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00528-
`ADA, 2022 WL 299733, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2022) (“The Complaint does not allege that
`BillJCo’s June 2019 Letter notified Apple that it infringed the Asserted Patents or identified Apple
`products accused of infringement here.”); Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co., 530 F.
`Supp. 3d 468, 492 (D. Del. 2021) (“Nor does the Court understand how the letter could have
`provided Defendants with notice of how they infringed any patent-in-suit, since the letter made no
`attempt to do so.”).
`
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`That is because the letter that Valjakka attached to the SAC does not even suggest—much
`less allege—that Netflix is infringing the patent. See SAC Exhibit D; see Teradyne, 2020 WL
`8173024, *3–5 (dismissing willful infringement allegations when letter did not “include a specific
`charge of infringement and identify an accused product at issue in this case”); see also Fluidigm,
`2020 WL 408988, at *5. Although the letter identifies the ’167 Patent, it does not identify the
`accused product (Netflix Open Connect) or any Netflix product; does not identify any Netflix
`product that it believes to infringe; does not identify any claims or limitations that it believes are
`infringed; and does not request that Netflix cease and desist any current or future activity. See SAC
`Exhibit D. Instead, the letter merely states that “it seemed apparent that Netflix was considering
`an R & D project on digital push distribution through P2P networks” and suggests that Netflix
`license Valjakka’s patent and use the SC Intelligent Holding Oy’s “75,000 well designed lines of
`code” in a P2P distribution system to “decrease its dependency on CDN platform providers and
`strengthen its position as the leading content delivery network.” Id. at 1. This speculative R&D
`project on “digital push distribution through P2P networks” is not even remotely related to the
`subject matter of Valjakka’s current allegations against Netflix’s streaming service. In short, the
`letter cannot form a plausible factual basis that Netflix had knowledge of alleged infringement or a
`specific intent to infringe.
`
`B.
`
`Valjakka’s Post-Suit Allegations of Willful Infringement Should Also Be
`Dismissed Because They Are Based Solely on Notice Provided by the
`Complaint.
`Valjakka’s post-suit willfulness claim should also be dismissed because Valjakka fails to
`plead pre-suit willful infringement, and the Complaint alone is not sufficient to sustain a claim for
`post-suit willful infringement. Although there is a split regarding whether a complaint for direct
`infringement alone can provide the requisite knowledge of the patent and of infringement to sustain
`willful infringement allegations after the date of the complaint, multiple decisions from this district
`(and elsewhere) have found that it does not. See Sonos, 2022 WL 799367, at *2, n. 3. To state a
`claim for post-suit willfulness, recent cases require a plaintiff to plead sufficient pre-suit facts that
`plausibly allege knowledge of the patent and a specific intent to infringe (i.e., knowledge of
`infringement). See Sonos, 2022 WL 799367, at *5; CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc., Nos. 14–cv–05068–
`
`-6-
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`JD, 14–cv–05071–JD, 2015 WL 3945875, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015); Wrinkl, Inc. v.
`Facebook, Inc., No. 20-cv-1345-RGA, 2021 WL 4477022, at *7 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2021);
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 3d 247, 252 (D. Del. 2021).
`In Sonos, for example, Judge Alsup noted that “allowing the complaint to serve as notice
`would circumvent the worthwhile practice to send a cease-and-desist letter before suit.” 2022 WL
`799367, at *5.4 Similarly, Judge Andrews reasoned that “if all that is required is the filing of a
`complaint and a plausible allegation of infringement, then every case would be a willful
`infringement case.” Wrinkl, 2021 WL 4477022, at *8. Allowing otherwise would permit a plaintiff
`to simply file a complaint for direct infringement and then amend it to allege the requisite
`knowledge for willfulness since the date of the original complaint. Id. at *7 (“Willful patent
`infringement is the rare exception, not the rule. . . . [W]hen there is no pre-suit knowledge, it is not
`sufficient merely to allege the defendant has knowledge since the filing of the original complaint
`and has not ceased doing whatever the infringing behavior is alleged to be.”). These recent cases
`demonstrate that post-suit willfulness claims cannot be sustained when there are no allegations of
`pre-suit willful infringement.
`
`C.
`
`Valjakka’s Willful Infringement Allegations Should Be Dismissed with
`Prejudice.
`There is no reason to allow Valjakka a fourth opportunity to plead willful infringement
`sufficiently because “it is clear” that the SAC cannot “be saved by amendment.” Salameh, 726
`F.3d at 1133. Valjakka has known about the 2014 letter for eight years; it has amended its pleadings
`twice; and it has had “ample opportunity” to include all relevant facts to plead willful infringement
`allegations. Id. Yet Valjakka has still failed to do so. Id. As explained above, the October 2014
`letter is Valjakka’s only basis for these allegations, but the letter does not allege infringement of
`any claim by any Netflix product and instead speculates about development that is not even
`remotely related to Valjakka’s current allegations. See Anderson v. Intel Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm.,
`No. 19-CV-04618-LHK, 2022 WL 74002, at 12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2022) (dismissing with prejudice
`
`4 In Sonos, Judge Alsup recognized “that reasonable minds may differ as to the ground rules set
`forth above for pleading willfulness and indirect infringement (on the knowledge point. . . ),” and
`certified this issue for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 2022 WL 799367 at *8.
`
`-7-
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`because “the document on which Plaintiffs rely, which is incorporated by reference into the FAC,
`unambiguously shows…[that] Plaintiffs fail to allege a meaningful benchmark”). And here, like
`in Anderson, the full scope of any potential allegations is apparent in the plain text of the attachment
`to the SAC, and it cannot sustain Valjakka’s claims. Id.; see also MasterObjects, 2021 WL
`4685306, at *7 (dismissing with prejudice because plaintiff “ha[d] twice amended its complaint to
`revise its willful infringement allegations… [and since t]he second amended complaint fails to
`sufficiently address knowledge of infringement[, …a]ny further amendment is accordingly futile”).
`Valjakka cannot cure its allegations with further amendment, and they should be dismissed with
`prejudice.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`Because Valjakka’s SAC and attached letter are insufficient to plead knowledge of
`infringement, the Court should dismiss Valjakka’s willful infringement allegations with prejudice
`and strike paragraphs 20–22 of Valjakka’s SAC, and references to “willful infringement” in
`paragraph 26 and the Prayer for Relief.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 51 Filed 06/09/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Sarah E. Piepmeier
`Sarah E. Piepmeier, Bar No. 227094
`Elise S. Edlin, Bar No. 293756
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, California 94105
`SPiepmeier@perkinscoie.com
`EEdlin@perkinscoie.com
`Telephone: +1.415.644.7000
`Facsimile: +1.415.344.7050
`
`Janice L. Ta (appearance pro hac vice)
`JTa@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`405 Colorado Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: +1.737.256.6100
`Facsimile: +1.737.256.6300
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NETFLIX, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4:22-CV-01490-JST
`NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`