Ixi Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03752

MOTION to Dismiss Civil Action Without Prejudice as Moot filed by IXI IP,LLC, IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor before Judge Haywood S Gilliam Jr. Responses due by 12/31/2019. Replies due by 1/7/2020.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

9 1 Jason D. Cassady (pro hac vice) jcassady@caldwellcc.com 2 Hamad M. Hamad (pro hac vice) hhamad@caldwellcc.com 3 Robert Seth Reich, Jr. (pro hac vice) 4 sreich@caldwellcc.com CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY, PC 5 2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75201 6 Telephone: (214) 888-4848 7 John V. Picone III, Bar No. 187226 8 jpicone@hopkinscarley.com Jennifer S. Coleman, Bar No. 213210 9 jcoleman@hopkinscarley.com HOPKINS & CARLEY 10 P.O. Box 1469 11 San Jose, CA 95109-1469 Telephone: (408) 286-9800 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD. and IXI IP, LLC 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD. et al., CASE NO. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL 19 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL., 20 Date: February 6, 2020 Defendants. Time: 2:00 p.m. 21 Courtroom: 2, 4th Floor 22 Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 23 IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD. et al., 24 25 Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 26 v. 27 APPLE INC., Defendant. 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .....................................................................................................1 3 RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................................................................1 4 MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................1 5 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.........................................................1 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2 7 1. Rule 41(a)(2) ............................................................................................................2 8 2. Rule 12(b)(1) ............................................................................................................4 9 3. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction .........................................................................5 10 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6 11 1. All Asserted Claims Are Cancelled. ........................................................................6 12 2. These Civil Actions Must Be Dismissed as Moot and Without Prejudice. .............7 13 a) IXI's Infringement Claims Should Be Dismissed Without Prejudice Because Defendants Will Suffer No Legal Prejudice. .................................8 14 b) IXI's Infringement Claims Must Be Dismissed Without Prejudice 15 as Moot Because the Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Render a Judgment on the Merits. ...............................................................9 16 c) Defendants' Counterclaims Should Also Be Dismissed. ...........................10 17 3. The Cancellation of the Asserted Patent Claims During IPRs Does Not 18 Change the Mootness Analysis. .............................................................................11 19 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG i 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 Abbey Dental Ctr. v. Consumer Opinion, LLC, 782 F. App'x 618 (9th Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................................4, 8 4 Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 5 568 U.S. 85 (2013) ..............................................................................................................................6, 11 6 Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Tri–Ergon Corp., 7 294 U.S. 477 (1935) ....................................................................................................................6, 7, 9, 10 8 B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 940 F.3d 675 (Fed. Cir. 2019).............................................................................................................9, 12 9 10 Beckett v. MACYSDSNB, No. C11-00246 HRL, 2012 WL 479593 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2012) ........................................................4 11 Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 12 495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007)...............................................................................................................11 13 Bennett v. Dhaliwal, 14 721 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................................4, 8, 9 15 Bennett v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 269, 202 L. Ed. 2d 179 (2018) .................................................................................................4 16 17 Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................................5 18 Cupey Bajo Nursing Home, Inc. v. United States, 19 23 Cl. Ct. 406 (1991) ................................................................................................................................8 20 DCI Sols. Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 21 No. 10CV0369-IEG BGS, 2011 WL 6013090 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011) .................................................4 22 Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869) ....................................................................................................................................8 23 Foster v. Carson, 24 347 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................................................6, 9, 12 25 Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 26 No. 11-CV-01726-LHK, 2012 WL 893152 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) ...................................................4 27 Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................................................................6, 9, 11, 12 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG ii 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 Frigard v. U. S., 862 F.2d 201 (9th Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................................7 2 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Releasomers, Inc., 3 824 F.2d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1987)...................................................................................................................5 4 Guinn v. Kopf, 5 96 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................................6, 7, 9 6 H.R. Techs., Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)...........................................................................................................7, 10 7 8 Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................................................3, 4, 8 9 Hampton v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 10 869 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................................7, 10, 12 11 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. United States Forest Serv., 12 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................................................7 13 Jervis B. Webb Co. v. So. Sys., Inc., 742 F.2d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).................................................................................................................5 14 15 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) ..................................................................................................................................5 16 Lemaire Illumination Techs., LLC v. HTC Corp., 17 No. 2:18-CV-00021-JRG, 2019 WL 1489065 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2019) ...............................................10 18 Madey v. Duke Univ., 19 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002).................................................................................................................5 20 Mars Inc. v. Kabushiki-Kaisha Nippon Conlux, 24 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1994)...................................................................................................................5 21 McCarthy v. United States, 22 850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................................5 23 MedImmune, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc., 24 409 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................................................................5 25 Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Norton Co., 929 F.2d 670 (Fed. Cir. 1991)...................................................................................................................5 26 27 Molins PLC v. Quigg, 837 F.2d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 1988).................................................................................................................5 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG iii 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 Mylan Pharm. Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., Inc., 914 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019).................................................................................................................6 2 Navellier v. Sletten, 3 262 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................3, 8 4 Nordblad v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 5 667 F. App'x 239 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................................7 6 Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................................8 7 8 Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) ..................................................................................................................................5 9 Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 10 853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)...........................................................................................................6, 10 11 Santa Rosa Mem'l Hosp. v. Kent, 12 688 F. App'x 492 (9th Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................................4, 8, 9 13 Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) ..................................................................................................................................7 14 15 SHFL Entm't, Inc. v. DigiDeal Corp., 729 F. App'x 931 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................6, 12 16 Siler v. Dillingham Ship Repair, 17 288 F. App'x 400 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................................7 18 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 19 523 U.S. 83 (1998) ................................................................................................................................7, 8 20 Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int'l B.V., 889 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................................3, 8 21 Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 22 665 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012).................................................................................................................5 23 Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp., 24 57 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1995).............................................................................................................5, 11 25 Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Mylan Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................5, 11 26 27 Target Training Int'l, Ltd. v. Extended Disc N. Am., Inc., 645 Fed. App'x 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................6, 7, 10, 12 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG iv 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 Toxgon Corp. v. BNFL, Inc., 312 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2002).................................................................................................................5 2 Transp. Techs., LLC v. Los Angeles Metro. Transportation Auth., 3 No. CV 15-6423-RSWL-MRW, 2019 WL 2058630 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2019) ........................................9 4 Wages v. I.R.S., 5 915 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................................7, 10 6 Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 479 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007).................................................................................................................3 7 8 XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018).........................................................................................................11, 12 9 Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 10 850 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................................3, 4, 8 11 12 Rules 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)...................................................................................................................1, 4, 5, 11 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) ...........................................................................................................1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 15 Fed. R. Evid. 201 ..........................................................................................................................................2 16 Other Authorities 17 Wright & Miller, 9 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2364 (3d ed. Aug. 2019 update) .......................................3, 8 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG v 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 6, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.,1 Plaintiffs will, and hereby do, 3 move under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 41(a)(2) for dismissal without prejudice of Civil Action Nos. 4:15- 4 CV-03752-HSG and 4:15-CV-03755-HSG as moot and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs 5 filed a statutory disclaimer cancelling Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532. All other asserted claims 6 were canceled in PTAB proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' infringement causes of action are now 7 moot, and these actions must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The issue to be decided 8 is whether the actions must be dismissed without prejudice. 9 RELIEF REQUESTED 10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 41(a)(2), Plaintiffs respectfully 11 request the Court dismiss these actions without prejudice as moot and for lack of subject matter 12 jurisdiction, as further detailed in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and 13 Proposed Order. 14 MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES 15 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 16 The history of these cases and how they now consist of one patent claim has previously been 17 documented before the Court. Dkt. No. 184 at 1-3; see also Dkt. No. 183 at 1-2.2 Defendants have 18 repeatedly challenged Plaintiffs' patents through multiple inter partes reviews before the PTAB and 19 subsequent reexaminations at the USPTO. In these proceedings, all asserted claims were cancelled except 20 for Claim 10 of the '532 Patent. In the interim, the USPTO issued a number of claims in the '033 Patent 21 during reexamination. IXI moved for leave to amend its infringement contentions to add these claims, 22 newly released products, and any claims that might issue in the '532 Patent during reexamination. 23 Defendants opposed IXI's request. The Court denied IXI's motion to amend, stating that new cases 24 25 1 When last checked on December 17, 2019, the Court's website indicated that this date was the first available law and motion date available on the Court's calendar and that no dates were available prior to 26 this date. 27 2 For simplicity, all docket citations refer to the docket in IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al. v. Samsung 28 Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 15-cv-03752-HSG, unless otherwise indicated. 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 1 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 would be needed to address IXI's reexamined claims of the '033 Patent. Dkt. 183 at 7. As a result, the 2 present civil actions were limited to a narrow set of products from before the cases were initially stayed 3 and limited only as to Claim 10 of the '532 Patent. Dkt. No. 183. Defendants then almost immediately 4 filed new declaratory judgment actions related to IXI's '033 Patent, seeking, inter alia, to bar an action 5 on the newly released products and reexamined claims based on claim preclusion.3 Defendants also 6 previously filed a new administrative reexamination action against IXI's '033 Patent,4 thereby forcing 7 IXI to litigate in multiple civil actions in district court actions and administrative proceedings at the 8 Patent Office. 9 Ultimately, IXI cannot simply litigate every case for the sake of litigating. In an effort to narrow 10 the parties' disputes for efficient resolution, IXI provided covenants not to sue to each of the Defendants 11 as to Claim 10 of the '532 Patent—the only claim that was then remaining in these cases. See Hamad 12 Decl. at Exhibit A (covenant not to sue granted to Apple) and Exhibit B (covenant not to sue granted to 13 Samsung). These covenants are unconditional. They are not limited to the specific legal entities that are 14 parties to these cases. They are not limited to acts of infringement preceding the effective date of the 15 covenants. To further simplify the Court's disposition and resolution of these cases, IXI also filed a 16 statutory disclaimer as to Claim 10 of the ʼ532 Patent, effectively canceling the claim. See Hamad Decl. 17 at Exhibit C (statutory disclaimer).5 All claims are now cancelled, and the Court no longer retains subject 18 matter jurisdiction. Therefore, these civil actions must be dismissed without prejudice as moot. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 1. Rule 41(a)(2) 21 "Voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is not unique to patent cases," and regional circuit 22 23 3 See Case Nos. 4-19-cv-06769 and -06773 filed on October 18, 2019. 24 4 See U.S. Re-examination Appl'n No. 90/014,330 filed on June 28, 2019. Moreover, Claim 10 of the '532 25 patent was recently rejected in a Final Office Action in a reexamination proceeding initiated by Apple at the USPTO. 26 5 27 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of the statutory disclaimer, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, and that the statutory disclaimer was filed 28 on December 12, 2019 in the public application file of the ʼ532 Patent maintained by the U.S. Patent Office. 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 2 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 law applies. See Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 479 F.3d 1330, 2 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claims without prejudice or conditions under 3 Fourth Circuit's analysis of Rule 41(a)(2), which is substantially similar to that of the Ninth Circuit6) 4 (citations omitted). 5 "Rule 41(a)(2) permits a plaintiff, with the approval of the court, to dismiss an action without 6 prejudice at any time." Stevedoring, 889 F.2d at 921. "Many courts have taken the sensible position that 7 8 dismissals without prejudice generally should be granted by the district court if no prejudicial effects 9 would result for the opposing party." Wright & Miller, 9 FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2364 (3d ed. Aug. 10 2019 update) (citations omitted).7 The Ninth Circuit follows this approach and allows a party to request 11 dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) unless the opposing party will suffer "plain legal 12 prejudice." See Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 850 F.3d 1090, 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2017) 13 (affirming dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) after finding no legal prejudice even when 14 15 plaintiffs filed new actions in state court and failed to comply with 90-day substitution requirement after 16 named party was deceased).8 17 Plain legal prejudice is "prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument." 18 19 6 See, e.g., Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int'l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921-22 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing to Fourth Circuit opinion for the proposition that "[t]he purpose of the rule is to permit a plaintiff to dismiss 20 an action without prejudice so long as the defendant will not be prejudiced….") 21 7 "Accordingly, a very significant number of courts have followed the traditional principle recognized by the federal courts that dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will suffer some plain legal 22 prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. Also, it is well established that it is not a bar to 23 a court-granted dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) that the plaintiff may obtain some tactical advantage thereby." Wright & Miller, 9 FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2364 (3d ed. Aug. 2019 update) (citations 24 omitted). 25 8 See also Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 938 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) after finding no legal prejudice to opposing party); Stevedoring, 889 F.2d at 921–22 26 (affirming dismissal without prejudice and without costs, fees, or conditions under Rule 41(a)(2) after 27 finding no legal prejudice to opposing party); Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (affirming dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) after finding no legal prejudice 28 to opposing party). 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 3 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 See Zanowick, 850 F.3d at 1093 (citations and internal quotations omitted). "Plain legal prejudice, 2 however, does not result simply when defendant faces the prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff 3 merely gains some tactical advantage." Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145 (rejecting arguments that "trial 4 preparation" had begun or that defending another potential lawsuit was inconvenient). The Ninth Circuit 5 has similarly rejected other arguments for not rising to the level of "plain legal prejudice" necessary to 6 bar a dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). See Bennett v. Dhaliwal, 721 F. App'x 577, 578 7 8 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding district court abused its discretion in denying motion under Rule 41(a)(2) to 9 dismiss without prejudice and noting that the loss of a statutory judgment bar defense did not constitute 10 legal prejudice as it was merely a potential defense that had not yet accrued), cert. denied sub 11 nom. Bennett v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 269, 202 L. Ed. 2d 179 (2018).9 Furthermore, district courts in 12 this District and within the Ninth Circuit routinely grant motions to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) without 13 prejudice.10 14 15 2. Rule 12(b)(1) 16 A party can move a court to dismiss an action as moot for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 17 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Here, Ninth Circuit law governs the procedural question 18 19 20 9 See also Abbey Dental Ctr. v. Consumer Opinion, LLC, 782 F. App'x 618, 619–20 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of action under Rule 41(a)(2) without prejudice and without costs or fees and noting 21 that the expense incurred in defending a lawsuit does not constitute legal prejudice); Santa Rosa Mem'l Hosp. v. Kent, 688 F. App'x 492, 493–94 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of action under Rule 41(a)(2) 22 without prejudice and without costs or fees and finding no legal prejudice when the procedural protection 23 allegedly lost would be the ability to possibly assert a res judicata defense in the future). 10 24 See, e.g., Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-CV-01726-LHK, 2012 WL 893152, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) (finding no legal prejudice to defendant and granting motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) 25 without prejudice and without awarding fees or costs); Beckett v. MACYSDSNB, No. C11-00246 HRL, 2012 WL 479593, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2012) (finding no legal prejudice to defendant and granting 26 motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) without prejudice and requiring defendant to demonstrate on a 27 motion for costs that expenses could not be used in future litigation); DCI Sols. Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 10CV0369-IEG BGS, 2011 WL 6013090, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011) (dismissing claims 28 without prejudice and without awarding fees or costs under Rule 41(a)(2)). 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 4 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.11 On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 2 jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), "the district court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but 3 may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the 4 existence of jurisdiction" without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. See McCarthy 5 v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). "Once a party has moved to dismiss for lack of 6 subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the opposing party bears the burden of establishing the 7 Court's jurisdiction." See Takeda Pharm. Co., 62 F. Supp. 3d at 1121 (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 8 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).12 9 3. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10 Whether the Court must dismiss these cases for lack of jurisdiction is governed by Federal Circuit 11 law because "it requires consideration of facts and resolution of legal principles that bear[] an essential 12 relationship to matters committed to [the Federal Circuit's] exclusive control." See Mars Inc. v. 13 Kabushiki-Kaisha Nippon Conlux, 24 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted).13 "It is 14 well-established that, in patent cases, the existence of a 'case or controversy must be evaluated on a 15 claim-by-claim basis.'" Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1269, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 16 2012) (quoting Jervis B. Webb Co. v. So. Sys., Inc., 742 F.2d 1388, 1399 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Moreover, the 17 "actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." 18 Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp., 57 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Preiser 19 v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)) (internal quotations omitted). 20 11 See Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("A dismissal for lack of subject 21 matter jurisdiction is a procedural question not unique to patent law, therefore we follow the law of the 22 regional circuit.") (citing Molins PLC v. Quigg, 837 F.2d 1064, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Mylan Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 1115, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ("Generally, dismissal for lack of 23 subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) 'is a procedural question not unique to patent law,' and is therefore governed by regional circuit law.") (quoting Toxgon Corp. v. BNFL, Inc., 312 F.3d 24 1379, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 25 12 See also Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). 26 13 See also Takeda Pharm. Co., 62 F. Supp. 3d at 1121 (citing MedImmune, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc., 409 27 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds, 549 U.S. 118, 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007)); Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Norton Co., 929 F.2d 670, 672 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Goodyear Tire & Rubber 28 Co. v. Releasomers, Inc., 824 F.2d 953, 954 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 5 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 A case becomes moot, that is, no longer a 'Case' or 'Controversy' for purposes of Article III, 2 "when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 3 outcome." See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013). A statutory disclaimer relinquishes a 4 patent owner's rights in and cancels the claims subject to the disclaimer. See Rembrandt Wireless Techs., 5 LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The patent is treated as if it issued without ever having the disclaimed claims in it. See 7 Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1422 (citing Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Tri–Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 492 8 (1935)). 9 Any cause of action based on a cancelled patent claim is moot, and there is no case or controversy 10 as to a cancelled patent claim. See Mylan Pharm. Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., Inc., 914 F.3d 1366, 11 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SHFL Entm't, Inc. v. DigiDeal Corp., 729 F. App'x 931, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2018); 12 Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Target Training Int'l, 13 Ltd. v. Extended Disc N. Am., Inc., 645 Fed. App'x 1018, 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A suit based on a 14 cancelled claim, which is now moot, must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See SHFL Entm't, 729 F. 15 App'x at 934; Target Training, 645 F. App'x at 1025; Fresenius, 721 F.3d at 1338.14 16 III. ARGUMENT 17 These cases must be dismissed as moot. First, since all asserted patent claims are canceled the 18 cases are mooted because there are no remaining causes of action. Accordingly, since the Court does not 19 have subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss these civil actions for lack of subject matter 20 jurisdiction. Such dismissals are dismissals without prejudice. 21 1. All Asserted Claims Are Cancelled. 22 The Court ruled and the parties have acknowledged that Claim 10 of the '532 Patent was the sole, 23 remaining basis for infringement in this case. Dkt. Nos. 183, 184. This is because all other originally 24 asserted patent claims have already been dismissed or mooted, and the Court denied IXI's motion to 25 26 14 See also Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and 27 federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists. If there is no longer a possibility that an appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot 28 and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.") (citations and quotation marks omitted). 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 6 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 amend. In particular, the originally asserted '398 Patent was previously dismissed from the case, Dkt. 2 No. 64, and, except for Claim 10 of the '532 Patent, all other asserted claims from the Patents-in-Suit 3 were cancelled in PTAB proceedings initiated by the Defendants. Further, on December 12, 2019, 4 Plaintiffs filed a statutory disclaimer canceling Claim 10 of the ʼ532 Patent. See Hamad Decl. at Exhibit 5 C; see also Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1422 (citing Altoona, 294 U.S. at 492). 6 2. These Civil Actions Must Be Dismissed as Moot and Without Prejudice. 7 "'[F]inal judgment on the merits' is synonymous with 'dismissal with prejudice.'" Hells Canyon 8 Pres. Council v. United States Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Semtek Int'l Inc. v. 9 Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505-06 (2001)). But under Ninth Circuit law, a "jurisdictional 10 dismissal is not a judgment on the merits." See Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir. 1990) 11 (finding district court erred in dismissing claims on the merits after finding that it lacked subject matter 12 jurisdiction). "Dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, must be without 13 prejudice, because a lack of jurisdiction deprives the dismissing court of any power to adjudicate the 14 merits of the case." Hampton v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 869 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 2017) (emphasis 15 added) (citing Wages, 915 F.2d at 1234).15 16 Likewise, Federal Circuit law also holds that "[a] dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a 17 dismissal on the merits." Target Training, 645 F. App'x at 1025 (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 18 Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)); see also H.R. Techs., Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378, 1384 19 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of complaint without prejudice and noting that dismissal for an 20 issue that does not go to the merits of the underlying patent issues "would not normally be expected to be 21 made with prejudice"). Rather, the Supreme Court recognized that "[w]ithout jurisdiction the court 22 cannot proceed at all in any cause" in rejecting to decide the merits of a case where the court lacks 23 24 15 See also Nordblad v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 667 F. App'x 239, 240 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Because the 25 district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is without prejudice.") (citing Frigard v. U. S., 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988)); Siler v. Dillingham Ship Repair, 288 F. App'x 400, 26 401 (9th Cir. 2008) ("However, we vacate the district court's judgment to the extent it dismissed the 27 complaint with prejudice, and remand for entry of judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice because a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits.") (citation 28 omitted). 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 7 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 jurisdiction. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514 (1869)); see 2 also Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1149–50 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing, inter alia, Cupey Bajo 3 Nursing Home, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 406, 412 (1991) ("It is well settled that a question relating 4 to subject matter jurisdiction goes to the very heart of our power to hear a controversy, and any decision 5 on the merits rendered in the absence of such authority would, of course, be a nullity.")). 6 a) IXI's Infringement Claims Should Be Dismissed Without Prejudice Because Defendants Will Suffer No Legal Prejudice. 7 Under Ninth Circuit law, motions to dismiss without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) should be 8 granted unless the opposing party will suffer some plain legal prejudice. See, e.g., Zanowick, 850 F.3d at 9 10 1093, 1096; Stevedoring, 889 F.2d at 921; Navellier, 262 F.3d at 938; Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145; see 11 also Wright & Miller, 9 FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2364 (3d ed. Aug. 2019 update) (explaining that 12 most federal courts have adopted this type of approach). 13 Here, Defendants will not suffer any plain legal prejudice. The Ninth Circuit has clarified that a 14 variety of consequences that might flow from a dismissal without prejudice do not constitute plain legal 15 prejudice. Examples of these legally insufficient consequences include loss of potential defenses in the 16 future, tactical advantages to the plaintiff, expenses in defending lawsuits, and the prospect of future 17 18 suits. See, e.g., Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145 (trial preparation underway, tactical advantage to plaintiff, or 19 inconvenience of another potential lawsuit); Bennett, 721 F. App'x at 578 (loss of unaccrued judgment 20 bar defense); Abbey Dental, 782 F. App'x at 619–20 (expenses in defending lawsuit); Santa Rosa, 688 F. 21 App'x at 493–94 (loss of possible res judicata defense in the future). 22 For one, granting IXI's requested dismissal does not even raise the prospect of a second lawsuit. 23 Defendants themselves in this instance have actually already filed subsequent declaratory judgment 24 lawsuits against IXI's '033 Patent.16 Additionally, while Defendants have pleaded a count of "res 25 26 judicata" in the declaratory judgment actions, that is not enough to rise to the level of legal prejudice. As 27 16 28 See Case Nos. 4-19-cv-06769 and -06773 filed on October 18, 2019. 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 8 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 demonstrated in above cited cases, the Ninth Circuit does not recognize the loss of a potential defense in 2 the future, include a res judicata defense, as plain legal prejudice that is sufficient to prevent a dismissal 3 without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). See, e.g., Santa Rosa, 688 F. App'x at 493–94 (finding that loss of 4 possible res judicata defense in the future was not plain legal prejudice); Bennett, 721 F. App'x at 578 5 (finding that loss of unaccrued statutory judgment bar defense was not legal prejudice). Moreover, the res 6 judicata count currently pleaded in Defendants' declaratory judgment complaints is based on the PTAB's 7 8 decisions in the IPRs—not a final judgment in these actions before the Court.17 9 Therefore, the Court should dismiss IXI's infringement claims without prejudice as Defendants 10 will not suffer any cognizable plain legal prejudice. 11 b) IXI's Infringement Claims Must Be Dismissed Without Prejudice as 12 Moot Because the Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Render a Judgment on the Merits. 13 "Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is 14 moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists. If there is no longer a possibility that an 15 appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of 16 jurisdiction." Foster, 347 F.3d at 745. In this instance, the cancellation of asserted claims in IPRs 17 rendered them moot. See, e.g., Fresenius, 721 F.3d at 1338 ("[S]uits based on cancelled claims must be 18 dismissed" and "when a claim is cancelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that claim, 19 and any pending litigation in which the claims are asserted becomes moot.'"); B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. 20 Facebook, Inc., 940 F.3d 675, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of infringement claims as moot 21 after Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB's determination of invalidity of asserted patent claims).18 Similarly, 22 the cancellation of Claim 10 of the '532 Patent by statutory disclaimer rendered it moot. See, e.g., 23 Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1422 (explaining that patent is treated as if it issued without ever having the disclaimed 24 25 17 See, e.g., Case No. 4-19-cv-06769, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 13-20 and 32-29. 26 18 27 See also Transp. Techs., LLC v. Los Angeles Metro. Transportation Auth., No. CV 15-6423-RSWL- MRW, 2019 WL 2058630, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2019) (granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss case 28 as moot after Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB's determination that asserted claims were unpatentable). 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 9 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 claims in it) (citing Altoona, 294 U.S. at 492); Rembrandt Wireless, 853 F.3d at 1383.19 Thus, the 2 cancellation of all asserted claims divested the Court of jurisdiction as to IXI's infringement causes of 3 action as well as any counterclaims and defenses related to those patent claims, and they must be 4 dismissed as moot. 5 Furthermore, under Ninth Circuit law, "[d]ismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction…must 6 be without prejudice, because a lack of jurisdiction deprives the dismissing court of any power to 7 adjudicate the merits of the case." See Hampton, 869 F.3d at 846; see also H.R. Techs., 275 F.3d at 1384; 8 Target Training, 645 F. App'x at 1025. Here, dismissing with prejudice would be reaching the merits of 9 the claims, and since there is no jurisdiction, that is improper. See Hampton, 869 F.3d at 846; Wages, 10 915 F.2d at 1234 (finding district court erred in dismissing claims on the merits after finding that it 11 lacked subject matter jurisdiction). Accordingly, the Court in this instance should dismiss IXI's 12 infringement claims without prejudice as moot. 13 c) Defendants' Counterclaims Should Also Be Dismissed. 14 When an action is dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) for lack of jurisdiction, that 15 dismissal also disposes of any counterclaims over which a district court similarly does not have 16 jurisdiction. See, e.g., H.R. Techs., Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 17 (affirming dismissal without prejudice of complaint and corresponding non-infringement counterclaim 18 for lack of jurisdiction but remanding as to unrelated counterclaims such as unfair competition and 19 tortious interference). Here, Defendants do not have any causes of action for which the Court should 20 21 retain jurisdiction. Defendants' counterclaims were limited to non-infringement and invalidity of the 22 patents-in-suit. See Dkt. No. 24 (-03752); Dkt. No. 18 (-03755). Accordingly, they should also be 23 dismissed as part of the dismissal of the action under Rule 41(a)(2). 24 25 26 19 27 See also Lemaire Illumination Techs., LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:18-CV-00021-JRG, 2019 WL 1489065, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2019) (dismissing counts without prejudice as moot after only patent 28 claims in same counts were cancelled with statutory disclaimer). 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 10 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 Furthermore, as all of Defendants' counterclaims in this dispute derive from the infringement 2 allegations and are also mooted by the cancellations of the asserted claims as well as the covenants not to 3 sue, they can alternatively be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). See, e.g., Takeda Pharm. Co., 62 F. Supp. 4 3d at 1121; see also Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 5 (applying MedImmune standard to counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability and finding no 6 declaratory judgment jurisdiction) (citing Super Sack, 57 F.3d at 1059–60); Already, 568 U.S. at 101-102 7 (affirming dismissal of invalidity counterclaims in light of covenant not to sue for lack of declaratory 8 judgment jurisdiction). 9 Because these cases relate only to IXI's now-mooted causes of action for infringement of 10 cancelled claims and Defendants' counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement of the same, the 11 Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over these cases and must dismiss these civil actions as 12 moot and without prejudice. 13 3. The Cancellation of the Asserted Patent Claims During IPRs Does Not Change the Mootness Analysis. 14 IXI anticipates Defendants will rely on XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 15 2018), for the proposition that the Court should dismiss with prejudice any of IXI's asserted patent 16 17 claims that were cancelled during IPRs. But XY does not stand for that proposition. XY might stand for 18 the proposition that the affirmance of a PTAB's final written decision of invalidity "has an immediate 19 issue-preclusive effect on pending or co-pending actions involving the patent." See id. at 1294. But XY 20 does not instruct dismissing those claims with prejudice in the co-pending district court litigations. In 21 fact, the Federal Circuit stated that it has applied "collateral estoppel" (i.e., issue preclusion) in "mooting 22 pending district court findings of no invalidity based on intervening final decision of patent invalidity." 23 See id. at 1294 (citations omitted and emphasis added). The Federal Circuit also dismissed the "appeal of 24 25 the district court's decision on this issue as moot." See id. at 1294 (emphasis added). It did not remand 26 with instructions for dismissal with prejudice or otherwise render a merits decision on this issue. This 27 makes sense because once the patent claims were cancelled, there was no federal subject matter 28 jurisdiction over those claims—and no court could reach their merits. See, e.g., Fresenius, 721 F.3d at 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 11 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 1338; Foster, 347 F.3d at 745; Hampton, 869 F.3d at 846; SHFL Entm't, 729 F. App'x at 934; Target 2 Training, 645 F. App'x at 1025. 3 Moreover, in a recent decision, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a district court's dismissal of 4 infringement claims for mootness after the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's determination that the 5 asserted claims were unpatentable. See B.E. Tech., 940 F.3d at 679. Moreover, in ruling on the 6 defendant's motion of judgment on the pleadings, the district court rejected the defendant's request that 7 8 the case should be dismissed with prejudice. See id. at 676-77. The Federal Circuit in B.E. Technology 9 did not invoke XY to reverse and find that the district court should have dismissed with prejudice. Rather, 10 the Federal Circuit noted that "citing Fresenius, the district court appropriately [dismissed] on the ground 11 of mootness." See id. at 679. 12 The Court should reject an interpretation of XY that is inconsistent with the overwhelming weight 13 of Federal Circuit authority, including both Fresenius and B.E. Technology. 14 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 In sum, because no patent claims remain at issue, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 17 these cases. Accordingly, the Court cannot issue a judgment on the merits, and must dismiss these cases 18 without prejudice. For at least the forgoing reasons, the Court should find that no subject matter 19 jurisdiction remains and dismiss these civil actions without prejudice as moot. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 12 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 9 1 Dated: December 17, 2019 HOPKINS & CARLEY A Law Corporation 2 By: /s/ Jason D. Cassady 3 John V. Picone III Jennifer S. Coleman 4 HOPLKINS & CARLEY 70 South First St. 5 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 286-9800 6 7 Jason D. Cassady (admitted pro hac vice) jcassady@caldwellcc.com 8 Hamad M. Hamad (admitted pro hac vice) hhamad@caldwellcc.com 9 Robert Seth Reich, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) sreich@caldwellcc.com 10 CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY P.C. 11 2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75201 12 Telephone: (214) 888-4848 13 Thomas Biemer (admitted pro hac vice) tbiemer@dilworthlaw.com 14 John J. Higson (admitted pro hac vice) 15 jhigson@dilworthlaw.com Joshua Wolson (admitted pro hac vice) 16 jwolson@dilworthlaw.com DILWORTH PAXSON LLP 17 1500 Market Street, Ste. 3500(E) Philadelphia, PA 19106 18 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD. and IXI IP, LLC 20 21 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 23 On December 17, 2019, I caused the foregoing document, titled Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss 24 Civil Action Without Prejudice as Moot, to be lodged with the Court, and served on opposing counsel. 25 /s/ Jason D. Cassady 26 Jason D. Cassady 27 28 30 Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 31 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT