Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 299
`
`OPENTV, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`PINTEREST, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANT PINTEREST, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 24-1301 (CFC)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 300
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`/s/ Karen Jacobs
`__________________________________
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`E. Paul Steingraber (#7459)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`kjacobs@morrisnichols.com
`esteingraber@morrsinichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Pinterest, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Matthias Kamber
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`101 California Street, 48th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 856-7050
`
`David Tennant
`Jacob Rothenberg
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 551-1700
`
`Grace Wang
`200 Park Avenue
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`
`Robert W. Unikel
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 499-6000
`
`February 3, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 301
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ................................................ 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................... 2
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) ............................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Pleading Direct Infringement ................................................................ 6
`
`Pleading Induced, Contributory, or Willful Infringement ..................... 7
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. OpenTV Fails to Plausibly Plead Direct Infringement ......................... 8
`
`B. OpenTV Fails to Plausibly Plead Induced or Contributory
`Infringement ..................................................................................................17
`
`C. OpenTV Fails to Plausibly Plead Willful Infringement ......................20
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 302
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co.,
`501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 7
`AgroFresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC,
`C.A. No. 16-662-MN, 2019 WL 350620 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2019) ........................ 7
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................. 5
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .......................................................................................... 1, 5
`Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co.,
`530 F. Supp. 3d 468 (D. Del. 2021)................................................................ 8, 19
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 7
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Nokia Corp.,
`C.A. No. 17-cv-155-RGA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44936 (D. Del.
`Mar. 20, 2018)....................................................................................................... 7
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp.,
`415 F. Supp. 3d 482 (D. Del. 2019).............................................................passim
`Cleveland Med. Devs. v. Resmed Inc.,
`696 F. Supp. 3d 4 (D. Del. 2023) .................................................................... 8, 20
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) ............................................................................................ 18
`Commvault Sys., Inc. v. Rubrik Inc.,
`C.A. No. 20-524 (MN), D.I. 42 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2021) ...................................... 7
`DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC v. Lenovo Holding Co.,
`C.A. No. 18-098 (MN), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213202 (D. Del.
`Dec. 19, 2018) ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 303
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 8
`Dynamic Data Techs. v. Google LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-1529-CFC, 2020 WL 1285852 (D. Del. Mar. 18,
`2020) ............................................................................................................. 19, 20
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................... 7, 18
`Malvern Panalytical Ltd. v. Ta Instruments-Waters LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-2157-RGA, 2021 WL 3856145 (D. Del. Aug. 27,
`2021) ............................................................................................................... 8, 20
`N. Star Innovs., Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 17-506-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5501489
`(D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017) ...................................................................... 6, 13, 15, 17
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 6
`Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`640 F. Supp. 3d 365 (D. Del. 2022)................................................................ 8, 18
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 351 (D. Del. 2017).................................................................. 6, 9
`Super Interconnect Techs. LLC v. HP Inc.,
`C.A. No. 19-169-CFC, 2019 WL 6895877 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2019) ......... 7, 9, 17
`Swirlate IP LLC v. Keep Truckin, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 20-1283-CFC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140631 (D. Del.
`Jul. 28, 2021)......................................................................................................... 6
`TMI Sols. LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-965 .................................................................................................... 6
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Zenpayroll, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 19-1075-CFC-SRF, 2020 WL 4260616 (D. Del. June 23,
`2020) ................................................................................................................. 7, 9
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 304
`
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) ........................................................................... 1, 5, 20
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 305
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff OpenTV, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “OpenTV”)
`
`filed this action against Pinterest, Inc. (“Pinterest”) purporting to allege direct,
`
`indirect, and willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,419,817 (“the ’817 patent”),
`
`9,699,503 (“the ’503 patent”), 7,669,212 (“the ’212 patent”), and 7,055,169 (“the
`
`’169 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”). See D.I. 1, ¶ 3 (“Complaint”). But
`
`the allegations against Pinterest fail to meet the plausibility threshold articulated in
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Pinterest therefore moves to
`
`dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
`
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`1. For direct infringement, the Complaint fails to allege that Pinterest
`
`meets any limitation of any asserted claim. The Complaint does not map any of the
`
`asserted claims to Pinterest’s technology or otherwise plead factual allegations tying
`
`the Asserted Patents to Pinterest. As a matter of law, this fails to meet the pleading
`
`standard and leaves Pinterest without fair notice of the allegations against it.
`
`2. Absent plausible direct infringement allegations, the indirect and
`
`willful infringement allegations also fail. In lieu of specific factual allegations, the
`
`Complaint merely recites boilerplate and conclusory statements to claim pre-suit
`
`knowledge of infringement.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 306
`
`
`
`3. Because the Complaint fails to provide factual allegations sufficient to
`
`support a plausible inference of patent infringement and instead relies on conclusory
`
`assertions that do not put Pinterest on fair notice of the claims against it, Pinterest
`
`respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this action for failure to state any claim
`
`upon which relief can be granted.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Founded in 2010, Pinterest is a visual discovery engine where people around
`
`the world go to get the inspiration to create a life they love. Browsing and saving
`
`visual ideas on Pinterest’s service helps users imagine what their future could look
`
`like and go from inspiration to reality.
`
`Pinterest shows users visual recommendations called Pins. Pins are created
`
`by both individuals and businesses by uploading photos or videos or bookmarking
`
`content from the web and providing a text caption. Users can save and organize
`
`these recommendations into collections called boards.
`
`In its Complaint, OpenTV alleges that Pinterest infringes at least one claim of
`
`each of the four Asserted Patents and alleges direct, induced, contributory, and
`
`willful infringement of each patent. D.I. 1, ¶¶ 122-31, 136-46, 151-61, 166-76. The
`
`Asserted Patents relate generally to generating a customized playlist (see id., ¶¶ 122-
`
`50), an advertising manager (see id., ¶ 157), and supporting television functionality
`
`(see id., ¶ 172).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 307
`
`
`
`Counts I and II of the Complaint allege infringement of the ’503 and ’817
`
`patents and assert that “Pinterest’s Pin Recommendation System as described at
`
`¶¶ 47-66 satisfies each of the claim limitations either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents.” Id., ¶¶ 127, 142. Paragraphs 47-66 of the Complaint do not refer
`
`to the claim language of either patent and instead refer to Pinterest documents
`
`discussing obstacles in “modern content discovery applications” (id., ¶ 47),
`
`“collect[ing] data from users” (id., ¶¶ 48-51), “candidate generators, such as Pixie,
`
`and ranking models, such as Pinnability” (id., ¶¶ 52-64), “Group Boards” (id., ¶ 65),
`
`and “display[ing] Pins” (id., ¶ 66) features. The Complaint contains no mapping of
`
`“Pinterest’s Pin Recommendation System” onto any claim limitations of the ’503
`
`and ’817 patents. OpenTV alleges no pre-suit knowledge of the ’503 patent (id., ¶¶
`
`94, 125) and identifies only a July 2024 letter as pre-suit knowledge of infringement
`
`of the ’817 patent (id., ¶¶ 91, 139).
`
`Count III of the Complaint alleges infringement of claim 44 of the ’212 patent
`
`and asserts that “Pinterest’s Advertisement Recommendation Technologies” as
`
`described at ¶¶ 67-86 “satisfies each of the claim limitations either literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents.” Id., ¶ 157. These paragraphs refer to Pinterest
`
`documents discussing “Pinterest’s ad serving system” (id., ¶ 67), “Ads Manager”
`
`(id., ¶¶ 68, 71-72), “Ads Engagement Modeling” (id., ¶ 69), an “ads serving system
`
`[] ‘Mohawk’” (id., ¶ 70), “ad campaign” and “ad group” (id., ¶ 73), “target ads” (id.,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 308
`
`
`
`¶¶ 74-77), a “collections ad” (id., ¶ 78), “distributing [] ad” (id., ¶¶ 79-83), and
`
`“log[ging] a user’s response to an ad” (id., ¶¶ 84-86), but do not map any of
`
`“Pinterest’s Advertisement Recommendation Technologies” onto any claim
`
`limitations of the ’212 patent. The Complaint alleges OpenTV presented the ’212
`
`patent to Pinterest in March 2023. Id., ¶¶ 89, 154.
`
`Count IV alleges infringement of the ’169 patent and asserts that “Pinterest’s
`
`use of adaptive bitrate streaming as described at ¶¶ 44-47 satisfies each of the claim
`
`limitations either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id., ¶ 172. These
`
`paragraphs purport to describe adaptive bitrate streaming, but contain no analysis
`
`mapping adaptive bitrate streaming protocols onto any claim limitation of the ’169
`
`Patent. According to OpenTV, HTTP Live Streaming (HLS), and Dynamic
`
`Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (MPEG-DASH) are adaptive bitrate streaming
`
`protocols that involve “encoding the content at multiple bitrates and resolutions” and
`
`“selecting the best possible quality and dynamically adjusting it based on network
`
`conditions.” Id. 1 ¶¶ 44-47. The Complaint alleges OpenTV shared a chart for the
`
`’169 patent to Pinterest in or around May or October 2021. Id., ¶¶ 88, 95, 169.
`
`For each Count, OpenTV’s allegations of induced and contributory
`
`infringement consist of substantively identical, repeated paragraphs for each
`
`Asserted Patent, and are based on the same general descriptions of Pinterest’s
`
`material. Id., ¶¶ 128-30, 143-45, 158-60, 173-75 (referring repeatedly to
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 309
`
`
`
`Pinterest’s“web-based application at www.pinterest.com, its mobile application, and
`
`back-end platform,” “specifications and promotional literature,” and “Pinterest’s
`
`services, products, and/or features”). And the willfulness allegations consist of a
`
`single conclusory sentence for each patent, devoid of any factual allegation. See id.,
`
`¶¶ 129,131, 146, 161, 176 (“Pinterest’s infringement has been and continues to be
`
`willful.”).
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)
`To survive a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must
`
`contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
`
`plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible on its face if it contains sufficient
`
`facts to support a “reasonable inference” of liability. Id. at 663. “Threadbare recitals
`
`of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are
`
`insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Further, “[f]actual allegations must be enough
`
`to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If
`
`the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
`
`misconduct,” the complaint must be dismissed. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“[T]he
`
`complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to
`
`relief.’”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 310
`
`
`
`B. Pleading Direct Infringement
`To state a claim for direct infringement, “a plaintiff must allege facts ‘that
`
`plausibly indicate that the accused products contain each of the limitations found
`
`in the claim.’” Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 415 F. Supp. 3d 482, 489 (D. Del.
`
`2019) (citing TMI Sols. LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., C.A. No. 17-965
`
`LPS-CLB, 2018 WL 4660370, at *9 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2018)) (emphasis added); N.
`
`Star Innovs., Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 17-506-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5501489,
`
`at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017).
`
`Further, “the complaint must place the potential infringer on notice of what
`
`activity is being accused of infringement.” Swirlate IP LLC v. Keep Truckin, Inc.,
`
`C.A. No. 20-1283-CFC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140631, at *3 (D. Del. Jul. 28, 2021)
`
`(quoting Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). “To provide notice, a
`
`plaintiff must generally do more than assert that the product infringes the claim; it
`
`must show how the defendant plausibly infringes by alleging some facts connecting
`
`the allegedly infringing product to the claim elements.” Bos. Sci. Corp., 415 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 489 (citing SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 351, 353 (D. Del.
`
`2017)) (emphasis original). This can be met “by specifically identifying accused
`
`products, alleging that those products meet all the limitations of certain identified
`
`claims” and “attempt[ing] to map those products onto the asserted claim limitations.”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 311
`
`
`
`Commvault Sys., Inc. v. Rubrik Inc., C.A. No. 20-524 (MN), D.I. 42, at 2, 3 (D. Del.
`
`Feb. 10, 2021);see also Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Zenpayroll, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1075-
`
`CFC-SRF, 2020 WL 4260616, at *2, 4 (D. Del. June 23, 2020) (Report and
`
`Recommendation adopted, C.A. No. 19-1075-CFC-SRF, (2020 WL 5077416) (D.
`
`Del. Aug. 27, 2020); Super Interconnect Techs. LLC v. HP Inc., C.A. No. 19-169-
`
`CFC, 2019 WL 6895877, at *1, 2 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2019).
`
`C. Pleading Induced, Contributory, or Willful Infringement
`There is no induced, contributory, or willful infringement “without an
`
`underlying act of direct infringement.” Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`
`379 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004); ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co.,
`
`501 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (direct infringement is a threshold requirement
`
`for willful infringement). Dismissal is warranted if a plaintiff fails to “plead facts
`
`that support an inference that an underlying act of direct infringement has occurred.”
`
`AgroFresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC, C.A. No. 16-662-MN, 2019 WL 350620, at *2 (D.
`
`Del. Jan. 29, 2019) (citing In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing Sys.
`
`Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also Linear Tech., 379 F.3d
`
`at 1326; BlackBerry Ltd. v. Nokia Corp., C.A. No. 17-cv-155-RGA, 2018 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 44936, at *7 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2018).
`
`To plead indirect or willful infringement, the complaint must allege, among
`
`other things, that the defendant knew of the asserted patents and knew of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 312
`
`
`
`infringement. See DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304-06 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006); Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co., 530 F. Supp. 3d 468, 490-92
`
`(D. Del. 2021) (dismissing claims of induced, contributory, and willful infringement
`
`where defendants were not on notice of the alleged infringement). Dismissal of these
`
`claims is warranted where the complaint alleges no specific facts pertaining to
`
`knowledge of infringement (see, e.g., Malvern Panalytical Ltd. v. Ta Instruments-
`
`Waters LLC, C.A. No. 19-2157-RGA, 2021 WL 3856145, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 27,
`
`2021)) or knowledge of the patent (see, e.g., Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 640 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 365, 372 (D. Del. 2022)). Conclusory allegations of indirect or willful
`
`infringement are insufficient. See Bos. Sci. Corp., 415 F. Supp. 3d at 492, 495
`
`(dismissing claims of induced, contributory, and willful infringement when the only
`
`allegations regarding knowledge of infringement were conclusory); Cleveland Med.
`
`Devs. v. Resmed Inc., 696 F. Supp. 3d 4, 11-14 (D. Del. 2023) (dismissing
`
`willfulness when the allegations were conclusory).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`OpenTV’s Complaint fails to identify any factual bases to support a plausible
`
`claim of direct, induced, contributory, or willful infringement.
`
`A. OpenTV Fails to Plausibly Plead Direct Infringement
`All of OpenTV’s claims of direct infringement should be dismissed for failing
`
`to apprise Pinterest of the claims against it. The Complaint fails to allege sufficient
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 313
`
`
`
`facts to plausibly plead that Pinterest directly infringes at least one claim of any of
`
`the Asserted Patents. Factual allegations must “plausibly indicate that the accused
`
`products contain each of the limitations” of the asserted claims. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`
`415 F. Supp. 3d at 489 (emphasis added).
`
`Far from mapping each limitation of the asserted claims, the Complaint does
`
`nothing to state that any claim limitation is met by Pinterest’s accused technology.
`
`Each of the Complaint’s four Counts relies only on vague descriptions of Pinterest’s
`
`technology and conclusory assertions that Pinterest infringes the Asserted Patents.
`
`D.I. 1, ¶¶ 122-31, 136-46, 151-61, 166-76. What OpenTV fails to include are
`
`plausible factual allegations that are also tethered to the language of the asserted
`
`claims; absent that, OpenTV cannot plausibly allege direct infringement. See
`
`SIPCO, 230 F. Supp. 3d at 353 (granting motion to dismiss because “[t]he complaint
`
`contains no attempt to connect anything in the patent claims to anything about any
`
`of the accused products”); see also Super Interconnect Techs., 2019 WL 6895877,
`
`at *2 (dismissing case because plaintiff “[made] no attempt in the Complaint to
`
`connect specific components of ... the [accused] technology, or the accused or
`
`accused product to elements of the asserted claims.”); Uniloc 2017, 2020 WL
`
`4260616, at *2, 4-5 (dismissing complaint for failing to “show how the defendant
`
`plausibly infringes by alleging some facts connecting the accused product to the
`
`claim elements”); Bos. Sci. Corp., 415 F. Supp. 3d at 489, 490 (dismissing claims
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 314
`
`
`
`where plaintiff made “no attempt to connect specific components of the accused
`
`systems to elements of the asserted claims” and asserted “without explanation that
`
`the accused products meet each element of at least one claim of the asserted patent”).
`
`Here the Complaint nowhere explains how Pinterest allegedly satisfies any of the
`
`elements of the asserted claims.
`
`1. OpenTV fails to plausibly plead direct infringement of the
`’503 and ’817 Patents (Counts I and II).
`The Complaint’s only allegation of infringement of the ’503 patent amounts
`
`to the following vague, conclusory sentence: “Pinterest infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’503 patent because, for example, Pinterest’s Pin Recommendation System as
`
`described at ¶¶ 47-66 satisfies each of the claim limitations either literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents.” D.I. 1, ¶ 127. The Complaint mirrors the same sentence
`
`for the ’817 patent, referencing the same paragraph numbers. Id., ¶ 142. However,
`
`Paragraphs 47-66 of the Complaint do not allege how Pinterest’s supposed “Pin
`
`Recommendation System” satisfies any claim of the ’503 or ’817 patents. Nor does
`
`any other section of the Complaint. In fact, Paragraphs 47-66 do not refer to the
`
`claim language of either the ’503 or ’817 patents.
`
`Instead, Paragraphs 47-66 of the Complaint merely describe Pinterest’s
`
`content delivery in the most general terms. For example, the Complaint refers to
`
`Pinterest documents discussing obstacles
`
`in “modern content discovery
`
`applications” (id., ¶ 47), “collect[ing] data from users” (id., ¶¶ 48-51), “candidate
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 315
`
`
`
`generators, such as Pixie, and ranking models, such as Pinnability” (id., ¶¶ 52-64),
`
`“Group Boards” (id., ¶ 65), and “display[ing] Pins” (id., ¶ 66) features. This is
`
`insufficient to meet the plausibility standard for pleading direct infringement. For
`
`both patents, the limitations of claim 1 include specific requirements that cannot
`
`plausibly be satisfied by general descriptions of Pinterest’s purported “Pin
`
`Recommendation System” (even if taken as true).
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’503 patent requires, inter alia, “obtaining content
`
`utilization data” for “a viewer” that “is indicative of the viewer’s interest in
`
`respective content items,” and that the viewer be amongst a “plurality of viewers,”
`
`including “other viewers who are not identified as social connections of the viewer.”
`
`Claim 1 further requires “a server computer system” that “automatically generat[es]”
`
`“a list of popular content items that are currently popular among the plurality of
`
`viewers based on the obtained content utilization data.” The list of popular content
`
`items is required to be “customiz[ed]” “for a target viewer” “to generate a
`
`customized playlist”, “based on a viewing history of the target viewer and on a
`
`viewing history of viewers who are identified as social connections of the target
`
`viewer.” Such customizing includes specific requirements to satisfy the claim,
`
`including “generating a score for each item from the list of popular content items
`
`based on the viewing history of the target viewer and on the viewing history of the
`
`viewers who are identified as social connections of the target viewer” and “including
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 316
`
`
`
`items in the customized playlist based on the respective scores of the items from the
`
`list of popular content items.” The Complaint pleads no facts regarding what in
`
`Pinterest’s system allegedly meets any of these limitations. Among other failures,
`
`there is no description of how Pinterest practices the “content utilization data,”
`
`“social connections of the viewer,” “list of popular content items that are currently
`
`popular,” or “customized playlist,” let alone “generating a score for each item” or
`
`any other claim limitation.
`
`The Complaint similarly ignores the limitations of the ’817 patent. The
`
`limitations of claim 1 of the ’817 patent require, inter alia, “accessing a database to
`
`obtain content utilization data” “for a first viewer” that “is indicative of an interest
`
`of the first viewer in respective content items” and wherein the plurality of viewers
`
`comprises “a second viewer who is not identified as a social connection of the first
`
`viewer.” Claim 1 further requires “a computer system” that “automatically
`
`generat[es]” “a list of popular content items that are currently popular among the
`
`plurality of viewers based on the content utilization data.” The computer system
`
`must also “customiz[e]” the list of popular content items “to generate a playlist”
`
`based on profile data of the first viewer. The customizing by the computer system
`
`must further include “generating a score for each item from the list of popular
`
`content items based on the profile data of the first viewer,” “including items in the
`
`playlist based on at least some of the scores of the items from the list of popular
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 317
`
`
`
`content items,” and “based on the generating of the playlist, automatically sending,
`
`by the computer system, to a client device of the first viewer, an instruction that
`
`causes the client device to perform an operation for an item of the items included in
`
`the playlist.” But again, the Complaint is silent regarding what in Pinterest’s system
`
`is alleged to meet any of these limitations; there are no underlying factual allegations
`
`regarding how Pinterest practices the “content utilization data,” “profile data,” “list
`
`of popular content items that are currently popular,” “playlist,” “score,” or any other
`
`claim limitation.
`
`The Complaint ignores these and the other limitations of the claims of the ’503
`
`and ’817 patents and therefore fails to provide factual allegations that “plausibly
`
`indicate that Defendant’s accused products practice each of the limitations” of the
`
`asserted claims. N. Star Innovs., 2017 WL 5501489, at *1; Bos. Sci. Corp., 415 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 489.
`
`2. OpenTV fails to plausibly plead direct infringement of the
`’212 Patent (Count III).
`The allegations regarding the ’212 patent also fail to plausibly allege direct
`
`infringement. The Complaint’s infringement allegations for this patent amounts to
`
`the following vague, conclusory sentence: “Pinterest infringes at least claim 44 of
`
`the ’212 patent because, for example, Pinterest’s Advertisement Recommendation
`
`Technologies as described at ¶¶ 67-86 satisfies each of the claim limitations either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” D.I. 1, ¶ 157. Here too there is
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 318
`
`
`
`nothing in Paragraphs 67-86 of the Complaint (nor anywhere else in the Complaint)
`
`that explains at all how the alleged “Advertisement Recommendation Technologies”
`
`are supposed to satisfy claim 44 of the ’212 patent. In fact, these paragraphs of the
`
`Complaint do not even refer to or mention any of the ’212 patent’s claim language,
`
`let alone map it to Pinterest. Instead, Paragraphs 67-86 of the Complaint merely
`
`purports to generally describe advertisement delivery that is supposedly offered by
`
`Pinterest. For example, the Complaint refers generally to Pinterest documents
`
`discussing “Pinterest’s ad serving system” (id., ¶ 67), “Ads Manager” (id., ¶¶ 68,
`
`71-72), “Ads Engagement Modeling” (id., ¶ 69), an “ads serving system []
`
`Mohawk’” (id., ¶ 70), “ad campaign” and “ad group” (id., ¶ 73), “target ads” (id.,
`
`¶¶ 74-77), a “collections ad” (id., ¶ 78), “distributing [] ad” (id., ¶¶ 79-83), and
`
`“log[ging] a user’s response to an ad” (id., ¶¶ 84-86). This is insufficient to plausibly
`
`plead infringement.
`
`The limitations of claim 44 of the ’212 patent include specific requirements
`
`that are not plausibly satisfied by the Complaint’s general descriptions of Pinterest’s
`
`purported “Advertisement Recommendation Technologies” (even if taken as true).
`
`For example, the claim requires, inter alia, “an advertising manager” and “a delivery
`
`manager.” The advertising manager must be configured to perform seven specific
`
`functions, including (1) “access a campaign rule”; (2) “based on the campaign rule,
`
`select one or more advertisements for delivery to the target”; (3) “send the selected
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 319
`
`
`
`one or more advertisements to the delivery manager for delivery to the client
`
`device”; (4) “apply one or more rules to a client device user response to the selected
`
`one or more advertisements to predict further user interests”; (5) “generate a new
`
`campaign rule based on the predicted further user interests”; (6) “based on the new
`
`campaign rule, select a new advertisement to be delivered to the target”; and (7)
`
`“trigger the delivery manager to include the new advertisement in the one or more
`
`advertisements for delivery to the target.” But the Complaint is completely silent
`
`regarding what in Pinterest’s system is supposed to be the “advertising manager” or
`
`the “delivery manager,” let alone any of the steps required of the “advertising
`
`manager.” Specifically, there is no description of how anything in Pinterest
`
`“access[es] a campaign rule,” “appl[ies] one or more rules… to predict further user
`
`interests,” “generate[s] a new campaign rule,” or “trigger[s] the delivery manager to
`
`include the new advertisement,” each of which is required to be performed by the
`
`claimed “advertising manager.”
`
`By failing to plead factual allegations regarding how Pinterest meets these and
`
`the other limitations of the asserted claim, the Complaint fails to “plausibly indicate
`
`that Defendant’s accused products practice each of the limitations” of the asserted
`
`claims. N. Star Innovs., 2017 WL 5501489, at *1; Bos. Sci. Corp., 415 F. Supp. 3d
`
`at 489.
`
`3. OpenTV fails to plausibly plead direct infringement of the
`’169 Patent (Count IV)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 12 Filed 02/03/25 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 320
`
`
`
`Finally, the allegations for the ’169 patent do not plausibly support an
`
`infringement claim. The Complaint’s sole infringement allegation for this patent
`
`amounts to th