Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 727
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No.: 23-278-MN
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PAYRANGES’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF PROCEDURE
`12(B)(6)
`
`Dated: June 16, 2023
`
`James C. Yoon (PHV pending)
`Ryan R. Smith (PHV pending)
`Jamie Y. Otto (PHV pending)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`jotto@wsgr.com
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`Ian R. Liston (# 5507)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`iliston@wsgr.com
`Telephone: (302) 304-7600
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 728
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`The ’772 Patent Is Directed to Patent-Eligible Subject Matter............................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`CSC Fails to Establish Representativeness of Claim 1 of the ’772
`Patent........................................................................................................... 4
`
`Alice Step One: The ’772 Patent Focuses on Specific
`Technological Improvements to Mobile Transactions With
`Vending Machines and Other Payment Accepting Units ........................... 5
`
`Alice Step Two: The ’772 Patent Has Inventive Concepts That
`Improve Mobile Transactions With Vending Machines and Other
`Payment Accepting Units ........................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PayRange Has Adequately Plead Indirect Infringement Of The ’208, ’608
`and ’772 Patents .................................................................................................... 10
`
`PayRange Has Adequately Plead Willful Infringement of The ’045 Patent ........ 12
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 729
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................3, 10
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .............................................................................................2, 3, 5, 8
`Automated Tracking Sols., LLC, v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`No. 2017-1494, 2018 WL 935455 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018) ........................................3, 10
`Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co.,
`No. 20-51-RGA, 2022 WL 606287 (D. Del. Jan. 4, 2022) ................................................11
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................3, 4, 9, 10
`Dynamic Dig. Depth Research Pty Ltd. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. CV 15-5578-GW(Ex), 2016 WL 7444561 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016) ...........................9
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................5
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ...............................................................................................................3
`TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 18-1518-MN, 2019 WL 2524779 (D. Del. June 19, 2019) ....................................9
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................8
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................3
`STATUTES
`Section 101.......................................................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5, 8
`RULES
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................3
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 730
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`Plaintiff PayRange, Inc. (“PayRange”) is the leading innovator in mobile payments for
`
`unattended retail, including laundry and vending. PayRange spent years and millions of
`
`dollars researching and developing its patented innovations. Although most customers have
`
`embraced and successfully adopted PayRange’s unique patented technology, CSC adamantly
`
`refused. CSC instead replicated and blatantly infringed PayRange’s patented technology.
`
`Having exhausted all other all other avenues of potential resolution, PayRange brought this
`
`case to hold CSC responsible for its willful infringement.
`
`CSC’s Partial Motion to Dismiss1 falls far short of meeting its burden of establishing
`
`patent-ineligibility of the ’772 Patent by clear and convincing evidence. Fundamentally,
`
`CSC’s patent-ineligibility challenge rests on impermissibly broad and incorrect
`
`characterizations of PayRange’s patent that all but eviscerates the clear and specific
`
`technological enhancements of the claimed inventions. For instance, CSC ignores the
`
`improvements made to the payment process that allows for displaying multiple payment
`
`accepting units, processing transactions without the payment accepting unit being connected to
`
`a server and triggering payments on the mobile phone before establishing a wireless
`
`connection to the payment accepting unit. Properly understood, the ’772 Patent is not directed
`
`to an abstract idea but, rather, concrete improvements to mobile transactions with laundry
`
`machines and other payment accepting units.
`
`1 PayRange filed its Original Complaint, alleging that CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. (“CSC”) infringes
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,045 (“the ’045 Patent”), 10,438,208 (“the ’208 Patent”), 10,891,608 (“the
`‘608 Patent”), and 11,481,772 (“the ’772 Patent”), collectively, “the Asserted Patents.” D.I. 1.
`CSC filed Partial Motion to Dismiss PayRange’s Original Complaint. D.I. 8. PayRange then
`filed an Amended Complaint. D.I. 12. The Court then denied CSC’s motion as moot. D.I. 13.
`CSC filed Partial Motion to Dismiss PayRange’s Amended Complaint. D.I. 14.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 731
`
`Further, should the Court reach Step Two of Alice, as discussed below, the claims of the
`
`’772 Patent contain several limitations directed to the unconventional inventive concepts
`
`described in the specifications. CSC ignores the factual allegations–which must be accepted as
`
`true for purposes of a motion to dismiss–in the First Amended Complaint demonstrating that
`
`multiple claim elements of the ’772 Patent were not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
`
`At most, CSC’s motion highlights the parties’ factual dispute about what was–or was not–well-
`
`understood, routine, or conventional.
`
`CSC’s attempts to brush off indirect and willful patent infringement based on lack of
`
`knowledge also fails. Prior to this matter, CSC conducted an exhaustive technical evaluation of
`
`PayRange, where CSC learned of number PayRange patents, including the ’045 Patent.
`
`PayRange tried to work with CSC for many years and continually apprised CSC about its
`
`patented technology. To the extent that CSC did not know the identity for each Asserted
`
`Patent, it was due to CSC’s willful blindness. But regardless, PayRange sent CSC a draft
`
`complaint, which specifically identified each Asserted Patent. PayRange has clearly alleged
`
`facts supporting pre-suit knowledge which are sufficient at least at the motion to dismiss stage.
`
`For these reasons, as explained below, CSC’s motion should be denied in full.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Supreme Court recognizes “abstract ideas” as an exception to Section 101’s broad
`
`patentability principles. To identify which claims are and are not abstract ideas, the Supreme
`
`Court has articulated a two-part test:
`
`First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
`those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there
`in the claims before us?” To answer that question, we consider the
`elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered
`combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 732
`
`the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. We have
`described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive
`concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
`“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
`more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (emphasis added)
`
`(internal citations omitted). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “we tread carefully in
`
`construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” because “[a]t some
`
`level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” Id. at 2354 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)).
`
`Turning Step Two of Alice, “whether a claim element or combination of elements is
`
`well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a
`
`question of fact. Any fact, such as this one, that is pertinent to the invalidity conclusion
`
`must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Automated Tracking Sols., LLC, v. Coca-Cola Co., No.
`
`2017-1494, 2018 WL 935455, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018).
`
`When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), all factual inferences must
`
`be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d
`
`1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2017). For example, in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades
`
`Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit found error where
`
`a district court “denied leave to amend without claim construction and in the face of factual
`
`allegations, spelled out in the proposed second amended complaint, that, if accepted as true,
`
`establish that the claimed combination contains inventive components. . . .” Id.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 733
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’772 Patent Is Directed to Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
`
`The Court should deny CSC’s Partial Motion to Dismiss based on its Section 101
`
`challenge to the ’772 Patent. For Step One of the Alice framework, claim 1 of the ’772
`
`Patent—which is the only claim addressed by CSC—is not directed to the alleged abstract
`
`ideas proffered by CSC. Rather, the claim focuses on specific technological improvements.
`
`For Step Two, the ’772 Patent “involve[s] more than performance of ‘well-understood,
`
`routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Berkheimer, 881
`
`F.3d at 1367 (citation omitted). The question—whether a claim element or combination of
`
`elements is well-understood, routine and conventional—is one of fact and must be proven by
`
`clear and convincing evidence. Id. Here, because there are factual disputes as to whether the
`
`claims encompass inventive concepts, and at a motion to dismiss stage all factual inferences
`
`must be drawn in PayRange’s favor, dismissal is improper. Id. at 1369 (“While patent
`
`eligibility is ultimately a question of law, the district court erred in concluding there are no
`
`underlying factual questions to the § 101 inquiry.”).
`
`1.
`
`CSC Fails to Establish Representativeness of Claim 1 of the ’772
`Patent
`
`CSC appears to seek dismissal of the ’772 Patent in its entirety, but only provides
`
`analysis of claim 1 of the ’772 Patent. In this regard, CSC incorrectly characterizes claim 1 of
`
`the ’772 Patent as “exemplary.” D.I. 15 at 10. Without any analysis, CSC baldly asserts that the
`
`patent’s other claims are directed to the same alleged abstract idea of using a mobile device for
`
`payment on a machine. D.I. 15 at 12. Even if claim 1 of the ’772 Patent is found to be
`
`abstract and without any inventive concept, other claims of the ’772 patent have additional
`
`limitations that significantly add to the patentability and are simply ignored by CSC. For
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 734
`
`instance, claim 4 adds the limitation of the mobile device using a long-range transceiver to
`
`send the amount of the completed transaction to a server. CSC mistakenly views this addition
`
`in isolation not as part of the entire inventiveness of the claim. This step allows for the user to
`
`wait until they are in a preferred location or have a preferred connection before communicating
`
`the completed transaction to the server. This unconventional approach is an improvement over
`
`the prior art and should not be ignored in the § 101 analysis of the ’772 Patent.
`
`Similarly, claim 7 requires an “accelerometer” and, more specifically, requires “in
`
`accordance with a determination that the user is walking away from the available payment
`
`accepting unit, canceling the wireless communication path.” This is another material claim
`
`limitation, which utilizes an “accelerometer”—a specific electronic sensor—in a novel and
`
`unconventional manner and does so in specific context of mobile transactions with payment
`
`accepting units.
`
`Claim 9 requires that “in addition to exchanging the information, receiving, via the one
`
`or more radio transceivers, a coupon that is targeted to the user of the mobile device based on
`
`the transaction.” This represents a novel approach to presenting coupons to users in
`
`conjunction with mobile transactions.
`
`Accordingly, CSC’s representativeness analysis of the ’772 Patent fails. To the extent
`
`that the Court does not deny CSC’s motion on this basis, PayRange respectfully requests that
`
`the Court limit CSC’s motion to only claim 1.
`
`2.
`
`Alice Step One: The ’772 Patent Focuses on Specific
`Technological Improvements to Mobile Transactions With
`Vending Machines and Other Payment Accepting Units
`CSC erroneously contends that the ’772 Patent is directed to the “abstract idea of
`
`using a mobile device for making payments on a machine, including by requesting,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 735
`
`transmitting, and displaying information to complete a mobile payment.” D.I. 15 at 7.
`
`CSC’s contention mischaracterizes the ’772 Patent’s inventions and wholly disregards its
`
`improvements over the prior art. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299,
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“In cases involving software innovations, [the Step One] inquiry
`
`often turns on 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.’”).
`
`Claim 1 of the ’772 Patent is directed to specific technological improvements.
`
`Specifically, identifying payment units in proximity to the mobile device, receiving user
`
`selection of an available payment accepting unit, and triggering payment by the mobile
`
`payment application prior to establishing a wireless communication path with the selected
`
`payment accepting unit. Only after triggering payment and establishing the wireless
`
`connection is user input accepted to complete the transaction. This represented a specific
`
`way of using payment accepting units and mobile devices to make payments, not abstract
`
`ideas. (’772 Patent, D.I. 12 ¶¶ 83-85), ’772 Patent at 7:33-40, 33:38-48.
`
`The ’772 Patent stands in sharp contrast to conventional approaches. For instance,
`
`a more conventional approach requires that the payment accepting device have a persistent
`
`connection to a remote server in order to communicate with a mobile device. ’772 Patent
`
`at 6:42-60. In this regard, the server acted as an intermediary, governing all
`
`communications between the mobile device and payment accepting unit. Id. The mobile
`
`device had no ability (or need) to identify payment accepting units in proximity. Id.
`
`Rather, the remote server kept track of the payment accepting units. In effect, the payment
`
`was triggered from the server, with the mobile device doing little more than relaying user
`
`input. The server in turn would communicate with a single payment accepting device to
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 736
`
`disburse a requested good or service. Conventional approaches, therefore, required each
`
`payment accepting device to have networking hardware and a consistent network
`
`connection in order to be utilized. This led to increased costs in installation and operation
`
`of payment accepting devices, such as vending machines.
`
`The prosecution history of the ’772 Patent confirms that the claims pertain to a
`
`specific technological improvement. In allowing claims of the ’772 patent, the examiner
`
`identified US 20190236586 A1 (“Mei”) and US 20160132870 A1 (“Xu”) as the closest
`
`prior art to the ’772 Patent. Ex. 1 (’772 Notice of Allowance) at 3. In general, Mei taught
`
`a payment processing method of a vending machine receiving transaction information
`
`from a payment card application on a mobile device. Xu generally taught a method for
`
`facilitating secure transactions on a mobile device when long-range network connections
`
`are unavailable.
`
`The examiner specifically agreed that neither Mei nor Xu taught or suggested the
`
`recited limitations of claims 1, 13, and 15 which begins with “identifying one or more
`
`payment accepting units in proximity to the mobile device, that are available to accept
`
`payment from a mobile payment application executing on the mobile device, the
`
`identifying based at least in part on an identifier …” Ex. 1 (’772 Notice of Allowance,
`
`emphasis added) at 2. CSC’s articulation of the alleged abstract ideas is so broad that it
`
`would apply with equal force to Mei and Xu. That is clearly wrong because the USPTO
`
`examiner found the ’772 Patent novel and non-obvious over these prior art references.
`
`CSC’s assertion that the ’772 Patent merely recites generic network technologies
`
`to carry out payments to a machine in a digital environment is unavailing. D.I. 15 at 13.
`
`CSC ignores the specific technological solutions of the ’772 patent including displaying
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 737
`
`multiple payment accepting units, in proximity to a mobile device, on the mobile device
`
`(’772 claim 1), triggering payment by the mobile payment application before any
`
`connection to the payment accepting unit is established (’772 claim 1), and using wireless
`
`communication technology to facilitate a transaction without connection to a remote
`
`server (’772 claim 1). These specific improvements to transacting between a mobile
`
`device and a payment accepting machine overcame critical shortcomings in the prior art,
`
`including transforming the role of the remote server and mobile device.
`
`The Federal Circuit has upheld patentability in other network related patents where
`
`there is improvement to the computer functionality. In Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs.
`
`USA, Inc. the court found that a patent that reduced latency in network communications
`
`were directed to a patent-eligible improvement. 957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The
`
`court also found that “[t]he claimed invention's compatibility with conventional
`
`communication systems does not render it abstract. Nor does the fact that the
`
`improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components.” Id. at 1309. So too
`
`here, CSC’s arguments that the patented technology’s use of conventional components do
`
`not make it inherently abstract. Instead, the court should recognize the improvements
`
`made by the claims in mobile payment processing.
`
`The claims of the ’772 Patent are not directed to an abstract idea and the motion to
`
`dismiss on §101 grounds should be denied.
`
`3.
`
`Alice Step Two: The ’772 Patent Has Inventive Concepts That
`Improve Mobile Transactions With Vending Machines and
`Other Payment Accepting Units
`
`Even if the Court were to reach Step Two of the Alice framework, the ’772 Patent adds
`
`sufficient inventive concepts because the claimed inventions each constitute new and unique
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 738
`
`ways of improving mobile transactions with vending machines and other payment accepting
`
`units. Indeed, PayRange’s innovations constitute more than a sufficient “inventive concept” to
`
`pass muster under Step Two of the Alice framework as they “involve more than performance
`
`of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’”
`
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367 (citation omitted). See also Dynamic Dig. Depth Research Pty
`
`Ltd. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. CV 15-5578-GW(Ex), 2016 WL 7444561, at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. June
`
`6, 2016) (claims added inventive concept where specification described a particular claim
`
`limitation as a specific “advancement over prior art depth-mapping techniques” and another
`
`claim limitation, “classifier,” as “specifically limited” to particular relationships and “ha[ving]
`
`no meaning absent these relationships”).
`
`Citing TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. CV 18-1518-MN, 2019 WL
`
`2524779, at *5 (D. Del. June 19, 2019), CSC argues that “claims—which are drawn to the
`
`abstract idea of using a mobile device for payment on a machine—‘do not supply the
`
`requisite inventive concept because they are simply well-known generic computer
`
`components functioning in a conventional way.’” D.I. 15 at 14. But that assessment both
`
`leaves out key facts from the TrackTime decision and ignores the inventive concepts in the
`
`’772 Patent. In TrackTime, the quoted passage goes on to say that the claims “do not supply
`
`the requisite inventive concept because they are simply well-known generic computer
`
`components functioning in a conventional way and their ordered combination is the only
`
`logical order that there can be[.]” Id. (emphasis added). There, the court found no possible
`
`inventive concept because the patent claimed generic computer components and used them in
`
`the only order they could be used.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 739
`
`Here, in contrast, the unconventional order and way in which the computer elements
`
`are used is an inventive concept of the ’772 Patent. As discussed above, the ’772 Patent
`
`claims displaying multiple payment accepting units in proximity to a mobile device,
`
`triggering payment on a mobile device (rather than triggering payment on a server) and doing
`
`so before connecting to a payment accepting unit. ’772 Patent at 47:7-10 and 24-31.
`
`Further, the ’772 patent provides for completing a transaction with a payment accepting unit
`
`without the need for connecting to a remote server. ’772 Patent 47:24-31. In contrast, a
`
`conventional approach would require a user on a mobile device to first establish a connection
`
`with a remote server. ’772 Patent at 6:53-58. Only then could a user pay for a good or
`
`service. The ’772 Patent, therefore, goes against conventional wisdom in the way it performs
`
`the described transactions.
`
`CSC’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. D.I. 15 at 13-16. As an initial
`
`matter, “whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and
`
`conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact” that the court must
`
`accept as true. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368 (emphasis added); see also Automated Tracking,
`
`2018 WL 935455, at *5. PayRange’s First Amended Complaint contains numerous plausible
`
`factual allegations that, if accepted as true, establish that the claims of the ’772 patent contains
`
`inventive concepts. Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1125. CSC’s disagreement about whether the claims
`
`contain an inventive concept simply illustrates the prematurity of its motion. Berkheimer, 881
`
`F.3d at 1367. Accordingly, CSC’s motion should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`PayRange Has Adequately Plead Indirect Infringement Of The ’208, ’608
`and ’772 Patents
`PayRange has adequately plead indirect infringement of the ’208, ’608 and ’772 Patents
`
`and these claims should not be dismissed at this stage. CSC contends that the complaint does not
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 740
`
`adequately allege specific knowledge of these patents, but PayRange has alleged facts that, when
`
`taken as true, support both actual knowledge and, in the alternative, willful blindness of the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`For instance, PayRange specifically alleges that CSC willfully blinded itself to
`
`knowledge of the Asserted Patents despite knowing PayRange had relevant patents. D.I. 12 ¶ 8.
`
`PayRange alleges that CSC had been in several meetings with PayRange and had been shown a
`
`detailed technical presentation emphasizing PayRange’s patent protection. Further, CSC
`
`analyzed PayRange’s products that were labeled “Patented” and “Patent Pending”, visited
`
`PayRange’s website, which clearly identifies PayRange as a patent owner, and CSC even
`
`registered sample PayRange products online, again being notified of PayRange’s patents. D.I. 12
`
`¶ 8-12. Yet, CSC inexplicitly failed to investigate whether their activity would infringe these
`
`patents. D.I. 12 ¶ 8. After doing their own testing of PayRange’s patented products, CSC
`
`requested even more information from PayRange. This second round of technical presentations
`
`from PayRange identified many patents in PayRange’s portfolio that covered the disclosed
`
`technology. D.I. 12 ¶ 17. CSC, with knowledge of PayRange’s rights in this space, went ahead
`
`with their plans to make the infringing products. CSC released multiple mobile apps that copied
`
`the protected functionality of the PayRange app. D.I. 12 ¶ 20. Having seen so much of
`
`PayRange’s patented technology, CSC chose to ignore these rights and continue on with plans to
`
`infringe. To the extent that CSC did not have actual knowledge of the patents in suit, CSC’s
`
`blatant actions in acquiring PayRange’s technical information only to appropriate it as their own,
`
`is evidence of willful blindness on their part.
`
`Finally, as PayRange properly alleges, CSC had actual knowledge of the Asserted
`
`Patents. PayRange sent a detailed presentation discussing its intellectual property and CSC’s
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 741
`
`infringement along with a draft complaint before initiating this lawsuit to CSC’s counsel. As
`
`alleged, the draft complaint specifically identified each Asserted Patent and the specific bases for
`
`alleged infringement. Courts in this District have found that a pre-suit letter that lists specific
`
`patents and accuses products of the recipient is sufficient to plead knowledge for the patents in
`
`suit. See, e.g., Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co., No. 20-51-RGA, 2022 WL 606287
`
`(D. Del. Jan. 4, 2022). The draft complaint provided more than enough notice as this court has
`
`found pleading specific products and features that infringe is not required. Id. at *2 (“There is no
`
`requirement that a plaintiff pleads notice of how specific product features infringe specific
`
`patents. A plaintiff must plead, as Bench Walk has, that defendants had (1) knowledge of the
`
`patents-in-suit and (2) knowledge of infringement.”).
`
`No steps were taken by CSC to avoid infringement after receiving this information.
`
`Instead, CSC continued to infringe the Asserted Patents with knowledge that they had no right to
`
`do so. CSC’s motion makes no mention of PayRange’s assertions that CSC actively encourages
`
`their business partners and/or customers to use payment modules in an infringing manor. These
`
`allegations, taken as true, support PayRange’s claims for indirect infringement and dismissal of
`
`these claims should be denied.
`
`C.
`
`PayRange Has Adequately Plead Willful Infringement of The ’045 Patent
`
`PayRange has adequately plead, and CSC has not denied, willful infringement of the
`
`’045 Patent. PayRange’s First Amended Complaint alleges that CSC knew of the ’045
`
`Patent, and proceeded infringing despite such knowledge.
`
`The ’045 Patent was identified in multiple places that CSC knew about and chose to
`
`ignore. PayRange sent CSC a PayRange BluKey, marked with the ’045 Patent number, for
`
`testing. D.I. 12 ¶ 14. PayRange’s technical presentation that followed CSC’s request for
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 742
`
`more information also specifically called out the ’045 Patent. D.I. 12 ¶ 18. Even though
`
`CSC had been made aware of the ’045 Patent months in advance, they developed their own
`
`product that they knew infringed. Having knowledge of the patent and intentionally
`
`developing infringing products, PayRange’s allegations of willful infringement as to the ’045
`
`Patent should not be dismissed.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, PayRange respectfully requests that CSC’s motion to dismiss
`
`be denied in its entirety.
`
`Dated: June 16, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Ian R. Liston
`Ian R. Liston (# 5507)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`iliston@wsgr.com
`Telephone: (302) 304-7600
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`James C. Yoon (PHV pending)
`Ryan R. Smith (PHV pending)
`Jamie Y. Otto (PHV pending)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`jotto@wsgr.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PAYRANGE
`INC.
`
`-13-
`
`