`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 20-0665-CFC
`
`BLACKBOARD, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, this lawsuit was filed 1 on August 11, 201 7 and alleges that
`
`Defendant Blackboard, Inc. infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,578 and 7,069,293;
`
`WHEREAS, based on the briefing and a sealed filing in Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC, C.A. No. 17-1658-CFC, 2020 WL 7771219 (D. Del. Dec.
`
`30, 2020) the Court had reason to believe that the patents asserted in this case were
`
`licensed to third-party Fortress Credit Co. LLC and that Fortress had the ability to
`
`1 The present action was originally filed by Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`Luxembourg, S.A. Uniloc 2017 was substituted as Plaintiff on January 10, 2020.
`D.I. 68.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00665-CFC Document 98 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 436
`
`grant Blackboard a license to the asserted patents on the date this suit was filed,
`
`C.A. No. 17-1658, D.I. 58-1 at 119;2
`
`WHEREAS, "under WiAV [Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 1257,
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010),] the plaintiff in an infringement case ... lacks constitutional
`
`standing to sue [a] defendant if another party has the ability to grant the defendant
`
`a license to the patent." Uniloc v. Motorola, 2020 WL 7771219 at *6;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court directed the parties' attention to its decision in Uniloc
`
`v. Motorola and ordered the parties to submit letter briefs "addressing whether the
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this patent infringement action," Oral
`
`Order of Jan. 21, 2021;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court also invited the parties to address in their letters
`
`"whether additional discovery or a stay of the action is necessary," id.;
`
`WHEREAS, Uniloc filed a letter in response to the Court's order but did not
`
`address in its letter whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, but instead
`
`stated that Uniloc v. Motorola "appears" to create issue preclusion as to "various
`
`factual and legal issues" in this case and "that preclusion may thus cause this Court
`
`to find it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action," D.I. 96 at 2;
`
`2 This page number refers to the pagination assigned by CM/ECF.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00665-CFC Document 98 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 437
`
`WHEREAS, Uniloc requested in its letter that the Court stay the case while
`
`Uniloc v. Motorola is appealed, D.I. 96 at 2;
`
`WHEREAS, nowhere in its letter did Uniloc assert that the Court has subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over this action or that Uniloc has standing to bring its
`
`infringement claims;
`
`WHEREAS, " [t]he party bringing the action bears the burden of establishing
`
`that it has standing," Sicom Sys. v. Agilent Techs. , Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 976 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (applying Third Circuit law); and
`
`WHEREAS, Uniloc, in failing to directly answer whether the Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction, has not met this burden;
`
`NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this Twenty-eighth day of January in
`
`2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED for lack of
`
`subject matter jurisdiction and the Court of the Clerk is directed to CLOSE the
`
`case.
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
