Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`MEDALLIA INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CONTENT SQUARE SAS,
`
`Case No.: 6:21-cv-00532-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT CONTENT SQUARE’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`MEDALLIA INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 2 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 2 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2 
`A.
`Medallia’s Complaint Lacks Sufficient Factual Statements to Plausibly
`Allege that the Accused Product Infringes the ’552 Patent. .................................. 2 
`Medallia Has Not Pled Sufficient Facts to Plausibly Allege Direct
`Infringement of the ’552 Patent ............................................................................. 9 
`1.
`Medallia Does Not Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege that Content
`Square Directly Infringes the ’552 System Claims.................................... 9 
`Medallia Does Not Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege Direct
`Infringement of the ’552 Method Claims. ............................................... 12 
`The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Indirect Infringement ......................... 13 
`1.
`The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Induced Infringement ............. 13 
`2.
`The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Contributory
`infringement ............................................................................................. 13 
`The Complaint Fails to Allege Facts Sufficient to Plausibly
`Support an Inference of Content Square’s Pre-Suit Knowledge of
`Infringement ............................................................................................. 15 
`The Complaint Fails to Allege Facts Sufficient to Support an Inference of
`Willfulness ........................................................................................................... 16 
`1.
`The Allegations of the Complaint, Even Taken as True, Do Not
`Support an Inference of Willfulness ........................................................ 16 
`Medallia Fails to Allege Sufficient Facts to Plead Post-Suit
`Willfulness ............................................................................................... 17 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 17 
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`No. W:13-cv-362, 2014 WL 12551207 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2014) .......................................16
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................12
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................10, 11, 12, 13
`
`Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00300, 2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018) ......................................3, 8
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) .............................................................................................................15
`
`De La Vega v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. W-19-cv-00612, 2020 WL 3528411 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2020) .............................2, 3, 7, 8
`
`Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc.,
`No. 6:17-cv-186, 2017 WL 9935521 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) ..............................................2
`
`FHE USA LLC v. Lee Specialties, Inc.,
`No. 5:18-cv-715, 2018 WL 11347193 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2018) ........................................16
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) .................................................................................................................15
`
`M&C Innov., LLC v. Igloo Prods. Corp.,
`No. 4:17-cv-2372, 2018 WL 4620713 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 31, 2018) ............................................17
`
`Meetrix IP, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-309, 2018 WL 8261315 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018) ..............................................15
`
`Parity Networks, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00207, 2019 WL 3940952 (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2019) (Albright,
`J.) ..............................................................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 4 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................13
`
`T-Rex Prop. AB v. Regal Entm’t Grp.,
`No. 6:16-cv-1029, 2017 WL 4229372 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017) ..........................................16
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(a) ....................................................................................................................................11
`§ 271(b) ....................................................................................................................................15
`§ 271(c) ..............................................................................................................................14, 15
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The patent-in-suit relates to collecting website user feedback, referred to as “Voice of
`
`Customer” in the industry. Plaintiff Medallia provides “Voice of Customer” software solutions;
`
`Defendant Content Square does not. Not surprisingly, Medallia’s complaint is rife with conclusory
`
`allegations that are unsupported by factual allegations to render them plausible. Such threadbare
`
`allegations do not provide the minimal level of detail needed for the Court to reasonably draw the
`
`inference that Content Square, or anyone else, has now or ever infringed the ’552 patent. For the
`
`following reasons, the Court should dismiss Medallia’s insufficient complaint.
`
`First, Medallia’s infringement allegations cite screenshots from Content Square’s website,
`
`not Content Square’s products, and omit any further explanation tying the content of those
`
`screenshots to the actual products or language of claims. This Court has dismissed similarly
`
`deficient complaints in other cases and should take the same course of action here. Second,
`
`Medallia accuses a “system” comprising products provided by third parties, not Content Square,
`
`yet Medallia fails to allege facts sufficient to support an inference that Content Square is
`
`responsible for the actions of these third parties under either a direct or indirect infringement
`
`theory. Third, Medallia’s allegations that Content Square induces infringement by customers is a
`
`non-sequitur and should be dismissed because the complaint contains no facts supporting an
`
`inference that customers have now or ever committed the predicate act of directly infringing the
`
`patent. Fourth, Medallia has not plausibly alleged Content Square’s pre-suit knowledge of the
`
`’552 patent, defeating any claims of pre-suit indirect infringement and willfulness. And finally,
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`none of the allegations support the inference that Content Square’s conduct has at any point been
`
`so egregious as to merit a claim for enhanced damages.1
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss, “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 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To meet this
`
`standard, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable
`
`inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Courts “are not bound to
`
`accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. Thus, “[t]hreadbare recitals
`
`of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
`
`Id.; see also De La Vega v. Microsoft Corp., No. W-19-cv-00612, 2020 WL 3528411, at *2 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Feb. 7, 2020). In an action for patent infringement, in order to satisfy the pleading
`
`requirements of Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must provide “facts sufficient to create a plausible
`
`inference that each element of the claim is infringed by the accused products.” Diem LLC v.
`
`BigCommerce, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-186, 2017 WL 9935521, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Medallia’s Complaint Lacks Sufficient Factual Statements to Plausibly Allege
`that the Accused Product Infringes the ’552 Patent.
`
`Medallia’s complaint is bereft of factual allegations tying Content Square’s “web analytics
`
`platform” (the purported “Accused Product”) to each of the claim elements of the asserted patent.
`
`Attempting to substantiate its infringement allegations, Medallia cites various screenshots of
`
`
`1 This lawsuit is not about seeking recovery against a willful infringer. Rather, Medallia simply found one patent,
`drafted vague and conclusory allegations, and filed this suit in retaliation to Content Square’s efforts to enforce its
`own intellectual property rights against Medallia’s recently acquired subsidiary Decibel. See Content Square v.
`Decibel Insight Ltd., No. 1-20-cv-11184 (D. Mass.).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`Content Square’s website, but notably, not of the Accused Product itself. (See generally
`
`Complaint, ¶¶ 15-21.) For each screenshot, Medallia simply repeats or paraphrases the ’552 claim
`
`language, alleging without any supporting factual statements that the screenshots “illustrate” or
`
`are an “example” of the claimed functionality. (Id.) Medallia’s approach of supporting its
`
`infringement allegations with public website screenshots unaccompanied by any factual support
`
`has been soundly rejected by this Court, as well as its sister court in the Eastern District. See De
`
`La Vega, 2020 WL 3528411; Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00300, 2018 WL
`
`6981828, (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018). Medallia has not set forth a plausible theory of infringement
`
`and dismissal is appropriate.
`
`For example, the only claim mentioned in the complaint, Claim 1 of the ’552 patent,
`
`requires “website user structured feedback form generation functionality operative to generate
`
`structured feedback forms . . . comprising user selectable feedback messages provided in a
`
`categorized and nested structure.” (’552 patent, 10:23-29 (emphasis added).) In its complaint,
`
`Medallia alleges that the following screenshot indicates the presence of such functionality in the
`
`Accused Product:
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`(Complaint, ¶ 16.) But Medallia includes no factual allegations tying the contents of this
`
`screenshot to any element of Claim 1. Rather, Medallia simply paraphrases the language of Claim
`
`1, alleging that “as indicated on Content Square’s website, the Accused Product generates and
`
`provides structured feedback forms for providing user feedback on website user interaction that
`
`includes selectable feedback messages provided in a categorized and nested structure.” (Id.) Such
`
`conclusory allegations, without more, do not satisfy the pleading standards of Twombly/Iqbal.
`
`
`
`Even limited scrutiny of the material cited in Medallia’s complaint reveals the
`
`implausibility of their allegations. The above screenshot is a generic animation of a box labeled
`
`“feedback.” Nothing on the face of the screenshot indicates that the Accused Product itself
`
`(Content Square’s “web analytics platform”) includes “form generation functionality operative
`
`to generate structured feedback forms.” Nor does the source material for this screenshot supply
`
`any missing context. To the contrary, the context shows that this part of the animation was
`
`describing functionality provided by others, not Content Square.
`
`The above screenshot is part of an animated marketing video on Content Square’s website
`
`which describes Content Square’s “Partner Ecosystem.” (“The Power of Customer Insights
`
`Everywhere,” https://contentsquare.com/partners/ (last accessed Aug. 24, 2021) (hereinafter
`
`“Marketing Video”).) Around the timestamp seen in the screenshot, the video narration states that
`
`Content Square enables customers to “dig[] deeper into struggles you find in Voice of Customer
`
`tools to troubleshoot the cause of complaints quickly.” (Marketing Video at 1:01-05.) Medallia’s
`
`complaint does not allege that the various customers’ “Voice of Customer tools” form a part of the
`
`Accused Product: Medallia only accuses Content Square’s “web analytics platform.” (see
`
`Complaint, ¶15.) More to the point, the video also makes clear that “Voice of Customer” tools are
`
`provided not by Content Square, but by third parties, which have included Medallia:
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`(Marketing Video at 0:24; see also id. at 0:20-0:27 (“We’ve partnered with hundreds of the best
`
`technology and solution partners worldwide, complimented by our open APIs . . . .”)) Even taking
`
`as true the allegation that “Voice of Customer” tools can be integrated with Content Square’s
`
`platform, Medallia alleges no facts indicating that Content Square directs or controls any entity
`
`(such as customers) to actually form the complete system, as discussed below.
`
`The complaint does not allege that any particular customer’s “Voice of Customer” tool
`
`forms a part of Content Square’s “web analytics platform,” but even if it did, nothing on the face
`
`of the screenshot or in the video itself remotely suggests that the Accused Product “generates and
`
`provides structured feedback forms” that have a “categorized and nested structure.” The complaint
`
`contains no factual allegations attempting to connect the content of this screenshot to the language
`
`of the ’552 claims. Absent such factual allegations, the gap between the screenshot and the claim
`
`is simply too large for the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Content Square infringes.
`
`Medallia’s allegation that the “Accused Product” “generates and provides structured feedback
`
`forms” is implausible on its face.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’552 patent also recites “website user cancellation or abandonment
`
`prediction functionality operative to determine . . . that the given user intends to cancel a
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`transaction . . . and, upon making said determination, automatically present the user with at least
`
`one of the generated website user structured feedback forms . . . .” (’552, 10:30-39 (emphasis
`
`added).) Medallia alleges that the below figures “illustrate[]” the presence of such functionality
`
`in the Accused Product:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Complaint, ¶ 17.) Again, Medallia simply paraphrases the language of Claim 1, and provides no
`
`supporting factual allegations tying the contents of these screenshots to the language of the claim.
`
`(Id.) The cited screenshot does not, standing alone, give rise to a plausible infringement claim.
`
`The highlighted portion of the screenshot merely indicates that the tool allows users to “see the
`
`pages visitors viewed before . . . events such as Voice of Customer feedback, 404 site errors, site
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`abandonment or conversion.” (Id. (emphasis added).) But observing pages before “Voice of
`
`Customer feedback,” or “site abandonment” is not the same as predicting it, which is what the
`
`language of Claim 1 requires. (Id.) Moreover, neither screenshot remotely indicates the presence
`
`of functionality that “present[s] the user with at least one of the generated website user structured
`
`feedback forms” “upon making [a] determination” that the user “intends to cancel a transaction,”
`
`as required by Claim 1. The same is true of the webpages from which the screenshots were taken,
`
`which describe only analytics or monitoring capabilities and not the ability to present a feedback
`
`form to a user in response to a prediction of user behavior. (See generally Attachment A,
`
`https://contentsquare.com/platform/customer-journey-analytics/ (last accessed Aug. 24, 2021),
`
`Attachment B, https://contentsquare.com/platform/ (last accessed Aug. 24, 2021).) Medallia’s
`
`allegation that these screenshots illustrate the presence of “website user cancellation or
`
`abandonment prediction functionality” that “automatically present[s] the user with at least one of
`
`the generated website user structured feedback forms” is implausible on its face.
`
`
`
`Medallia’s defective approach is not limited to these two examples. Each of the
`
`screenshots that follow in the complaint are paired with similarly conclusory allegations of
`
`infringement, without any supporting factual statements tying the content of those screenshots to
`
`the requirements of the claim. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 18-21.) Even under the permissive standard of
`
`Rule 12(b)(6), these statements do not provide the requisite level of detail to state a plausible claim
`
`for relief.
`
`
`
`This Court has found approaches like Medallia’s to be insufficient before. In De La Vega
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., the complaint for patent infringement merely recited limitations of the asserted
`
`claims, and then “presented three screenshots of evidence without explaining how that evidence
`
`shows [the defendant] performs the . . . step.” 2020 WL 3528411, at *6. In granting Google’s
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`motion to dismiss, the court noted that De La Vega “d[id] not include even a short written
`
`description” of how the accused instrumentalities performed the claimed step in the screenshots
`
`provided. Id. at *6. So too, Medallia provides no written description of how the cited screenshots
`
`evidence the Accused Product’s performance or embodiment of the ’552 claims. Medallia offers
`
`only a conclusory allegation that recycles the claim language, and nothing more.
`
`
`
`Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., from the Eastern District of Texas, is also instructive.
`
`See 2018 WL 6981928. There, as in De La Vega, the complaint for patent infringement recited
`
`elements of an asserted claim, and then simply alleged that “[a]n example is illustrated” by one or
`
`more screenshots. Id. at *2. The court granted Shopify’s motion to dismiss, holding “[s]uch a
`
`statement, on its own, is a mere conclusory statement, and in order to pass the Iqbal/Twombly
`
`standard, there must be accompanying factual allegations.” Id. The court further noted that it:
`
`disagrees with Plaintiff that the screenshots themselves constitute
`the requisite factual allegations. While screenshots may be useful in
`laying out a plausible allegation of patent infringement, Plaintiff
`must further allege how the screenshots meet the text of the
`exemplary claim in order to lay out sufficient factual allegations
`which might permit the Court to find that the Iqbal/Twombly
`standard is met.
`
`Id. (emphasis added). The court’s reasoning in Chapterhouse applies with equal vigor here.
`
`Medallia has done nothing more than paraphrase the claim language, and then allege without any
`
`“accompanying factual allegations” that various screenshots illustrate performance or embodiment
`
`of those claim elements. Medallia’s infringement allegations do not pass muster under
`
`Iqbal/Twombly and, respectfully, should be dismissed.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`B. Medallia Has Not Pled Sufficient Facts to Plausibly Allege Direct Infringement of
`the ’552 Patent
`1. Medallia Does Not Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege that Content Square
`Directly Infringes the ’552 System Claims.
`
`Even if the screenshots and recitations of claim language could form the basis of an
`
`acceptable pleading, Medallia’s allegations that Content Square “makes” or “uses” the system
`
`claimed by the ’552 patent are insufficient as a matter of law. Medallia’s allegations reveal that
`
`third parties, and not Content Square, are responsible for at least the portion of the system
`
`supplying “form generation functionality.” Yet Medallia’s complaint lacks any factual allegations
`
`supporting an inference that any one party makes or uses the system as a whole, rather than
`
`components of it.
`
`As noted above, Medallia relies on the following screenshot to allege that the Accused
`
`Product includes “website user structured feedback form generation functionality operative to
`
`generate structured feedback forms . . . .” (’552 patent, 10:23-25; see Complaint ¶ 15.) This
`
`screenshot reveals that the discussion of “Feedback” pertains to “Voice of Customer” integrations:
`
`(Complaint, ¶ 16 (red box added); see generally Marketing Video.) As noted above, the same
`
`video also makes clear that while Content Square’s platform may integrate with third parties
`
`providing Voice of Customer functionality, the functionality itself is provided by third parties,
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`which have included Medallia. (Marketing Video at 0:24; see also id. at 0:20-0:27 (“We’ve
`
`partnered with hundreds of the best technology and solution partners worldwide, complimented
`
`by our open APIs . . . .”)) The video also states that these integrations leverage Content Square’s
`
`API, which enables third party applications to communicate with Content Square’s platform.
`
`(Marketing Video at 1:07-1:13.) Other material cited in the complaint shows that Voice of
`
`Customer tools are provided through third parties integrations and not by Content Square’s own
`
`web analytics platform:
`
`
`
`(Complaint, ¶ 15 (red underline added).) Thus, Medallia’s infringement allegations rely on third
`
`party Voice of Customer tools which may communicate with Content Square’s “web analytics
`
`platform” through the use of Content Square’s API but are not themselves part of the platform that
`
`Content Square itself provides. It is difficult to imagine why or how Medallia failed to plead
`
`detailed facts as to this point, since as noted above, Medallia was one of those third parties that
`
`supplied “Voice of Customer” tools that integrate with Content Square.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s opinion in Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.
`
`addressed the circumstances under which a single entity may be liable as a direct infringer where,
`
`as here, the accused “system” incorporates “elements in the possession of more than one actor.”
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 15 of 22
`
`
`
`631 F.3d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court held that while a single entity need not “exercise
`
`physical or direct control” over each part of the system, in order to be liable for “use” of such a
`
`system, that party must “put the invention into service, i.e., control the system as a whole and
`
`obtain benefit from it.” Id. at 1283-84. But Medallia’s complaint fails to identify any entity, let
`
`alone Content Square, who allegedly “puts the invention into service” by “control[ling] the system
`
`as a whole and obtain[ing] a benefit from it.” Id. Nor do the factual allegations of the complaint
`
`provide Content Square with adequate notice as to whom that alleged entity may be: for example,
`
`it is unclear whether Medallia believes that the party “controlling the system” is Content Square,
`
`third party Voice of Customer providers, or customers. A complaint lacking this minimal level of
`
`detail should not be permitted to proceed.
`
`So too, Medallia’s allegations that Content Square “makes” the Accused Product fails as a
`
`matter of law and should be dismissed. Id. at 1288. The allegations of the complaint reveal that
`
`Content Square does not “make” at least the component of the accused system responsible for
`
`“form generation functionality.” Even if Content Square’s platform is capable of integrating with
`
`Voice of Customer tools, Medallia does not identify a single party (be it Content Square, a partner,
`
`or a customer) who “combine[s] all of the claim elements” as is required to be liable for “making”
`
`a system under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1288. Medallia’s unsupported
`
`allegation that Content Square “makes” the Accused Product should be dismissed.
`
`The shortcomings of Medallia’s complaint are not remedied by its vague allegations of
`
`divided infringement. Medallia only alleges that Content Square “has conditioned the benefit of a
`
`financial relationship with itself on another company’s . . . performance of certain method steps .
`
`. . .” (Complaint, ¶ 22 (emphasis added).) But that does not suffice to render Content Square
`
`vicariously liable for another’s making or usage of the claimed system. See Centillion, 631 F.3d
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 16 of 22
`
`
`
`at 1288 (holding Qwest was “not vicariously liable for the actions [of third parties]” because those
`
`third parties “do not act as Qwest’s agents as a matter of law nor are they contractually obligated
`
`by Qwest to act.”). Because the complaint identifies no entity that “makes” or “uses” the claimed
`
`system, Medallia’s direct infringement allegations fail as a matter of law and should be dismissed.
`
`2. Medallia Does Not Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege Direct Infringement of
`the ’552 Method Claims.
`
`Medallia also fails to allege facts sufficient to plausibly state a claim for direct infringement
`
`of any of the method claims of the ’552 patent. Direct infringement of a method claim occurs only
`
`“where all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity.” Akamai
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).
`
`Medallia’s complaint, however, is devoid of any factual allegations that all steps of any method
`
`claim of the ’552 patent have ever been performed, let alone by or attributable to a single party.
`
`Again, Medallia’s divided infringement allegations do not remedy this shortcoming. The
`
`complaint only alleges that Content Square has performed “at least one claimed step,” and that it
`
`has “conditioned the benefit of a financial relationship with itself on another company’s . . .
`
`performance of certain other method steps . . . .” (Complaint, ¶ 22.) But the complaint includes
`
`no facts identifying which steps either Content Square or “another company” supposedly perform.
`
`Furthermore, the complaint never alleges that the steps performed by Content Square and any other
`
`entity collectively include each and every step of any of the claimed methods. Medallia’s
`
`complaint thus fails as a matter of law to plausibly allege divided infringement of the ’552 patent.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 17 of 22
`
`
`
`C. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Indirect Infringement
`1. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Induced Infringement
`
`Medallia’s allegation that Content Square induces infringement by its customers fails for
`
`the simple reason that the complaint does not contain any facts plausibly alleging that Content
`
`Square’s customers directly infringe the patent.
`
`For a party to be liable for inducing infringement of a patent, there must be a third party
`
`who has directly infringed that patent. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`
`Int’l, Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As described above, the complaint fails to state
`
`a claim for direct infringement of any of the system or method claims of the ’552 patent. This
`
`defect alone warrants dismissal of Medallia’s inducement allegations. Medallia’s customer-based
`
`inducement theory finds even less support in the complaint, which offers no facts whatsoever
`
`supporting an inference that any customers infringe the ’552 patent. For example, the complaint
`
`fails to identify any customer who “control[s] the system as a whole and obtain[s] a benefit from
`
`it.” Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1283-84. Medallia does not allege in the complaint that customers
`
`“make” or “sell” the Accused Product. And with respect to the ’552 method claims, the complaint
`
`includes no facts whatsoever alleging that any Content Square customer has performed even a
`
`single method step of the patent, let alone each and every step of any ’552 method claims. Because
`
`the complaint is devoid of factual allegations supporting an inference that any customer directly
`
`infringes the ’552 patent, the complaint cannot plausibly allege that Content Square somehow
`
`induces customers’ infringement. Medallia’s inducement allegations should be dismissed.
`
`2. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Contributory infringement
`
`Medallia’s single throwaway paragraph fails to plausibly allege contributory infringement,
`
`even considering the other allegations of the complaint. (See Complaint, ¶ 25.) A party is liable
`
`for contributory infringement only where that party sells a material or apparatus that has “no
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 18 of 22
`
`
`
`substantial noninfringing uses” and is known “to be especially made or especially adapted” for an
`
`infringing use. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). As noted above, the “component” of the accused system
`
`allegedly made or sold by Content Square is exclusive of at least the accused “form generation
`
`functionality,” which is provided by third party Voice of Customer vendors. Further, the
`
`allegations of the complaint make plain that the components of the accused product Content Square
`
`does sell (i.e., the web analytics platform) both has substantial noninfringing uses and is not
`
`especially adapted for infringement of the ’552 patent.
`
`For example, the Marketing Video cited in the complaint references a host of other,
`
`unaccused capabilities and integrations supported by Content Square’s web platform:
`
`
`
`(Marketing Video at 0:11 (red boxes added).) None of these integrations are accused of infringing
`
`in Medallia’s complaint. Similarly, Medallia cites to the webpage describing Content Square’s
`
`platform. (See Complaint, ¶ 20.) But again, this page describes hosts of other, unaccused
`
`functionalities and integrations supported by the Content Square platform, such as “AI Insights,”
`
`“Workspace, “Session Replay,” “Merchandising Analysis,” and “Mobile Apps Analysis,” just to
`
`name a few. (Attachment B, www.contentsquare.com/platform, last accessed Aug. 24, 2021.)
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00532-ADA Document 20 Filed 08/24/21 Page 19 of 22
`
`
`
`Medallia’s contributory infringement allegation is facially inconsistent with other material cited in
`
`its complaint, and implausible on its face.
`
`3. The Complaint Fails to Allege Facts Sufficient to Plausibly Support an
`Inference of Content Square’s Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement
`
`To the extent Medallia alleges pre-suit indirect infringement, such allegations should be
`
`dismissed because the complaint fails to allege