StemCell Therapy

HTC filed a motion to dismiss Motivas claim for willful infringement. HTC asserted that Motiva has failed to adequately allege that HTC had knowledge of the patents-in-suit. HTC also argued that Motivas factual allegations of willful blindness are insufficiently specific and otherwise unsupported as an evidentiary matter to state a claim for willful infringement.

In analyzing the motion to dismiss, the district court noted that Motiva did not allege actual knowledge for the pre-suit period, but also explained that Motiva was not required to do so as willful blindness could supply the requisite knowledge. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 824 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (recognizing that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that willful blindness can supply the requisite knowledge for indirect infringement) (citing Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1926 (2015); see also Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011).

Accordingly, the district court looked at whether the allegations of willful blindness were pleaded sufficiently. The district court examined two of the factual allegations pleaded by Motiva and found that either were sufficient to satisfy the plausibility standard under the Supreme Courts decision in Twombly. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).

Motiva first alleged that HTC has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others. The district court noted that creating a policy prohibiting review of patents is a specific kind of deliberate action[] to avoid learning of potential infringement. See Global-Tech, 563 U.S. at 768. This allegation, which the district court had to accept as true at this stage of litigation, raised a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the nature, scope, and wording of that policy, in support of Motivas claims of willful blindness. The district court concluded that [s]ince Motiva has alleged that HTC has such a specific policya policy prohibiting review of patentsMotiva has plausibly alleged that HTC was willfully blind.

Second, Motiva alleged that HTC performed specific acts to implement and enforce this policy. The district court explained that Motiva specifically alleges that HTC executed its policy prohibiting review of patents by instructing its employees to not review the patents of others. Again, the district court found that [s]imilar to the allegations related to the existence of HTCs policy, these allegations plausibly suggest that additional discovery will reveal evidence in support of Motivas claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Motivas allegations plausibly suggest that discovery will reveal what instructions were given by HTC, to whom they were given, and whether HTCs employees complied. Id. at 556. Accordingly, Motiva has adequately alleged willful blindness on this factual basis as well.

As a result, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and concluded that the requirements of Twombly are met when a plaintiff identifies the existence of a specific policy of willful blindness or specific acts of willfully blind conduct. Either factual allegationthe existence of the policy or its implementation in the form of specific acts of willfully blind conductis sufficient to state a claim at the pleading stage.

Motiva Patents, LLC v. HTC Corp., Case No. 9-18-CV-00180-JRG-KFG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2019)

See original here:
Motiva v. HTC: Allegations of Willful Blindness Sufficient to Defeat Motion to Dismiss a Claim for Willful Infringement - Lexology

This entry was posted on October 9, 2019 at 3:34 pm and is filed under Blindness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |