Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.198 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Consolidated Case No.: 3:16-cv-00385-
`H-WVG
`LEAD CASE
`
`Member Cases:
`3:16-cv-00386-H-WVG
`3:16-cv-00394-H-WVG
`3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG
`3:16-cv-00396-H-WVG
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON
`THE PLEADINGS
`
`[Doc. Nos. 290, 291, 292, 293, 297.]
`
`
`v.
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`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
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.199 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` Case No.: 3:16-cv-02499-H-WVG
`
`ORDER GRANTING
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`[Doc. No. 35.]
`
`On October 17, 2019, October 18, 2019, October 25, 2019, October 30, 2019, and
`November 18, 2019, respectively, Defendants Apple Inc., LG,1 Samsung,2 ZTE (USA),
`Inc., and Huawei3 each filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. Nos. 290, 291,
`292, 293, 297.)4 On October 18, 2019, Defendant LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A.,
`Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the related case. (16-cv-2499-Doc.
`No. 35.) On November 13 and 21, 2019, the Court took the matters under submission.
`(Doc. Nos. 296, 300.) On November 18, 2019, FastVDO filed a response to Defendants’
`motions for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. No. 295; 16-cv-2499-Doc. No. 38.) Apple,
`LG, ZTE, and Huawei filed replies. (Doc. Nos. 299, 301, 302, 303; 16-cv-2499-Doc. No.
`39.) For the reasons below, the Court grants Defendants’ motions for judgment on the
`pleadings.
`
`
`
`Defendant “LG” refers to LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`Defendant “Samsung” refers to Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`1
`
` 2
`
`
`Ltd.
`
` 3
`
`Defendant “Huawei” refers to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei
`
`Technologies USA, Inc., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
`
` 4
`
`All docket citations in this order are to the docket in Case No. 16-cv-385 unless otherwise noted
`
`in the citation.
`
`
`2
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`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 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.200 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`Background
`On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff FastVDO LLC filed several complaints for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants Apple, LG, Samsung, ZTE, and Huawei, among others,5
`in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482. (Doc. No. 1, Compl.; 16-cv-386-Doc. No. 1, Compl.; 15-
`cv-394-Doc. No. 1, Compl.; 16-cv-395-Doc. No. 1, Compl.; 16-cv-396-Doc. No. 1,
`Compl.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smartphones infringe and induce
`infringement of the ’482 patent. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 32, FAC ¶¶ 15–22.)
`On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants
`Apple and AT&T. (Doc. No. 32, FAC.) On January 29, 2016, the Eastern District of Texas
`court consolidated the actions for all pretrial issues, except venue. (Doc. No. 58.)
`
`On February 11, 2016, the Eastern District of Texas court granted the parties’ joint
`motion to transfer venue and transferred the consolidated action from the Eastern District
`of Texas to the Southern District of California. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75.) On April 5, 2016, the
`Court issued a scheduling order for the consolidated action. (Doc. No. 125.)
`
`On June 16, 2016, Apple filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of all of the asserted claims and other claims of
`the ’482 patent on obviousness grounds. (Doc. No. 217-2, Cappella Decl. Ex. A.) On June
`16, 2016, Microsoft and Samsung also filed a petition for IPR with the PTAB, challenging
`the validity of four of the six asserted claims and other claims of the ’482 patent on
`obviousness grounds. (Id. Ex. B.)
`
`On December 16, 2016, the PTAB granted Apple’s petition and instituted IPR2016-
`
`
`
`5
`On September 9, 2015, the Eastern District of Texas district court dismissed Defendant Dell, Inc.
`without prejudice. (16-cv-395-Doc. No. 31.) On April 29, 2016, the Court dismissed Defendants NEC
`Corporation and NEC Corporation of America with prejudice. (Doc. No. 132.) On October 21, 2016, the
`Court dismissed Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc. without prejudice. (Doc. No.
`199.) On January 6, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Microsoft Mobile Inc. with prejudice. (Doc.
`No. 235.) Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, and ZTE remain as the current defendants in Consolidated Case
`No. 16-cv-385.
`
`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
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.201 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`01203, and the PTAB granted Microsoft and Samsung’s petition and instituted IPR2016-
`01179. (Doc. No. 217-2, Cappella Decl. Exs. C, D.) On January 23, 2017, the Court
`granted Defendants’ motions to stay and stayed the present actions – Case Nos. 16-cv-385,
`16-cv-386, 16-cv-394, 16-cv-395, 16-cv-396, and 16-cv-2499 – pending the IPR
`proceedings. (Doc. No. 269.)
`On December 11, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 318(a) in IPR 2016-01203, ordering that claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 22-25,
`28, and 29 of the ’482 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (Doc. No. 281-2,
`Ex. 2 at 58.) On December 11, 2017, the PTAB also issued a final written decision pursuant
`to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) in IPR 2016-01179, ordering that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 12-14, 16, 17, and
`28 of the ’482 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (Doc. No. 281-1, Ex. 1 at
`40-41.) As a result of the PTAB’s final written decisions, all of the claims asserted in this
`litigation against all of the Defendants, i.e., claims 1, 12, 14, 17, 22, 28, and 29, were found
`to be unpatentable. (Doc. No. 281 at 1.) In light of this, on January 16, 2018, the Court
`administratively closed the consolidated case, the member cases, and the related case.
`(Doc. No. 287.)
`FastVDO subsequently appealed the PTAB’s final written decisions in IPR 2016-
`01179 and IPR 2016-01203 to the Federal Circuit. On September 25, 2018, the Federal
`Circuit issued a mandate dismissing FastVDO’s appeal of IPR2016-01179 pursuant to
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). FastVDO LLC v. Samsung Elecs. America,
`Inc., Case No. 18-1547, Docket No. 47 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018). On September 30, 2019,
`the Federal Circuit issued a mandate dismissing FastVDO’s appeal of IPR2016-01203
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). FastVDO LLC v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 18-1548, Docket No. 47 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2019). By the present motions,
`Defendants Apple, Samsung, ZTE, Huawei, LG, and LG Electronics Mobilecomm move
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
`that FastVDO’s claims for patent infringement should be dismissed as moot. (Doc. No.
`290-1 at 1-2; Doc. No. 291-1 at 1-2; Doc. No. 292-1 at 1-2; Doc. No. 293-1 at 1-2; Doc.
`
`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
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.202 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`No. 297-1 at 1-2; 16-cv-2499-Doc. No. 35-1 at 1-2.)
`Discussion
`Legal Standards for a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`I.
`In patent cases, a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 12(c) is governed by the “the procedural law of the regional circuit.”
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early
`enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “‘Judgment
`on the pleadings is properly granted when[, accepting all factual allegations in the
`complaint as true,] there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108
`(9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit has explained that the standard for deciding a Rule 12(c)
`motion “is ‘functionally identical’” to the standard for deciding a motion to dismiss under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys.,
`Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc.,
`867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)); accord Chavez, 683 F.3d at 1108.
`
`A complaint will survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if it contains “enough
`facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
`content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
`for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading
`that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
`action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint
`suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id.
`(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Accordingly, dismissal for failure to state a claim is
`proper where the claim “lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a
`cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104
`(9th Cir. 2008).
`
`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
`
`5
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.203 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court must accept as true
`
`all facts alleged in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`plaintiff. See Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d
`938, 945 (9th Cir. 2014). But, a court need not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Ashcroft
`v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In addition, “[a]lthough the complaint’s factual
`allegations generally must be treated as true in evaluating a motion for judgment on the
`pleading, courts may consider documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and
`matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Lee v. City of San Diego, No. 18CV0159 W
`(BLM), 2019 WL 117775, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor
`Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)); see Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018); Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th
`Cir. 2010).
`II. Analysis
`Defendants Apple, Samsung, ZTE, Huawei, LG, and LG Electronics Mobilecomm
`argue that FastVDO’s claims for patent infringement against them should be dismissed as
`moot. (Doc. No. 290-1 at 1-2; Doc. No. 291-1 at 1-2; Doc. No. 292-1 at 1-2; Doc. No.
`293-1 at 1-2; Doc. No. 297-1 at 1-2; 16-cv-2499-Doc. No. 35-1 at 1-2.) In each of the
`operative complaints, Plaintiff FastVDO alleged a single cause of action for infringement
`of the ’482 patent against Defendants Apple, Samsung, ZTE, Huawei, LG, and LG
`Electronics Mobilecomm, respectively. (Doc. No. 32, FAC ¶¶ 14-22; 16-cv-386-Doc. No.
`1, Compl. ¶¶ 12-19; 15-cv-394-Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 12-18; 16-cv-395-Doc. No. 1,
`Compl. ¶¶ 14-23; 16-cv-396-Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 16-23; 16-cv-2499-Doc. No. 1, Compl.
`¶¶ 12-19.) On December 11, 2017, the PTAB issued two final written decision pursuant
`to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) in the IPR proceedings, finding all of the asserted claims of the ’482
`patent to be unpatentable. (Doc. No. 281-1, Ex. 1; Doc. No. 281-2, Ex. 2; see Doc. No.
`281 at 2.) FastVDO appealed the PTAB’s decisions to the Federal Circuit, but the Federal
`Circuit subsequently dismissed those appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
`Procedure 42(b). See FastVDO LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 18-1548, Docket No. 47 (Fed.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.204 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`Cir. Sept. 30, 2019); FastVDO LLC v. Samsung Elecs. America, Inc., Case No. 18-1547,
`Docket No. 47 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018).
`
`Because the PTAB found the asserted claims of the ’482 patent to be unpatentable,
`and FastVDO’s appeals of the PTAB’s decisions have been dismissed by the Federal
`Circuit, FastVDO’s claims for infringement of the ’482 patent are moot. See B.E. Tech.,
`L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 940 F.3d 675, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The PTO instituted review
`of the asserted claims and found them unpatentable. We affirmed the Board’s decision,
`and the claims were cancelled. Facebook moved for judgment that the case be dismissed
`on the pleadings, and, citing Fresenius, the district court appropriately did so on the ground
`of mootness.”); Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2013) (“In light of the cancellation of Baxter’s remaining claims, Baxter no longer has a
`viable cause of action against Fresenius. Therefore, the pending litigation is moot.”); see
`also Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015) (“To say that an
`invalid patent cannot be infringed, or that someone cannot be induced to infringe an invalid
`patent, is in one sense a simple truth, both as a matter of logic and semantics.”); Exergen
`Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[B]ecause ‘invalid
`claim[s] cannot give rise to liability for infringement,’ SAAT cannot be liable for
`infringement of this patent.” (citation omitted)). Indeed, in its response, FastVDO
`concedes that these cases should be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 295 at 1; 16-cv-
`2499-Doc. No. 38 at 1.) Indeed, in its response to Defendants’ motions, Plaintiff FastVDO
`concedes that the cases should be dismissed. As a result, the Court grants Defendants’
`motions for judgment on the pleadings, and the Court dismisses FastVDO’s claims for
`patent infringement as moot. See B.E. Tech., 940 F.3d at 679.
`///
`///
`///
`
`
`
`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
`
`7
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 54 Filed 12/13/19 PageID.205 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`For the reasons above, the Court grants Defendants Apple, Samsung, ZTE, Huawei,
`
`LG, and LG Electronics Mobilecomm’s motions for judgment on the pleadings, and the
`Court dismisses FastVDO’s claims for patent infringement as moot. The Court directs the
`clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendant(s) and against Plaintiff FastVDO in Case
`Nos. 16-cv-385, 16-cv-386, 16-cv-394, 16-cv-395, 16-cv-396, and 16-cv-2499.6, 7
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: December 13, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`The parties should note that Case Nos. 16-cv-385, 16-cv-386, 16-cv-394, 16-cv-395, and 16-cv-
`396 were consolidated for pretrial purposes only. (See Doc. No. 58.) Now that the Court has granted
`Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, and the Court will subsequently enter judgment in
`each of the actions, any future filings should be made only in the specific case at issue.
`
`In their reply briefs, Defendants ZTE and Huawei raise arguments regarding the specific resolution
`
`of their counterclaims. (Doc. No. 302 at 2-3; Doc. No. 303 at 2-3.) The Court declines to address this
`issue raised for the first time in a reply brief. In their original motions, the specific relief both ZTE and
`Huawei requested was “that the Court enter a judgment dismissing FastVDO’s claims as moot.” (Doc.
`No. 292-1 at 2; Doc. No. 297-1 at 2.) The Court has done so.
`
` 7
`
`8
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`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
`
`