The opinion
fare Beas Ned
ng
5 JUL 2-3 2020 |
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 || MRSI SYSTEMS, LLC, . Case No.: 3:19-cv-02344-BEN-JLB
: _ Plants) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
13 || v. DISMISS
14 |} PALOMAR TECHNOLOGIES; INC., [ECF No. 20]
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff MRSI Systems, LLC (“MRSI”), alleges Defendant Palomar Technologies,
18 || Inc. (“Palomar”), directly and indirectly infringes on four patents it holds in the field of
19 || die-bonding systems. Compl., ECF No. 1, J 1-2, 32, 48, 59, 69. Palomar moves to
20 || dismiss the Complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted
21 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot., ECF No. 20-1. MRSI
22 || opposes the motion. Opp’n., ECF No. 24. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
23 || DENIES the motion to dismiss.
24
25
26 ///
27 || //
28
1 BACKGROUND!
2 MRSI is a manufacturer of automated, precision, high-speed bonding and epoxy-
3 || dispensing systems used in complex microelectronic and optoelectronic devices. Comp.,
4 ||ECF No. 1,94. These bonding and epoxy-dispensing systems use mechanical vision and
5 software to establish connections between circuit boards and their “packages,” which are
6 || critical to the assembly and manufacture of electronics in industries such as aerospace
7 |jand telecommunications. Jd. at J] 10-12. Palomar is a competitor of MRSI, and the
g parties are also engaged in patent litigation involving the validity of one of Palomar’s
9 || patents in the District of Massachusetts. Mot., ECF No. 20-1, 1.
10 The instant action involves four patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,324,710 (“the
||‘710 Patent”), 7,109,510 (“the ‘510 Patent”), 9,032,611 (“the ‘611 Patent”), and
12 ||9,648,795 (“the ‘795 Patent”). Compl., ECF. No. 1, Each patent relates to methods,
13 || devices, and software involved in aligning and attaching semiconductor parts on printed
14 || circuit boards. Jd. Ff 19, 23, 26, 29.
15 The ‘710 Patent is entitled “Method and Device for Determining Nominal Data for
16 || Electronic Circuits by Capturing a Digital Image and Compare with Stored Nominal
17 || Data.” Compl. Ex. H, ECF No. 1-10. The ‘710 Patent allows for faster and more
18 accurate mounting of components on printed circuit boards through the use of a priori
19 knowledge of the appearance of electronic devices. Jd. at Col. 2:29-35. The first claim
20 alleges infringement of the ‘710 Patent related to Palomar’s VisionPilot software and its
21. |/integration into Palomar’s accused products. Id. ff 34-38. □□
22 The*510 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Aligning a Substrate on a
23 Stage.” Compl. Ex. I, ECF No. 1-11. As the name indicates, this patent is directed
24 ||toward an apparatus and method that allows for precision placement and alignment of a
25 .
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
27 ||! The Court here is not making any findings of fact, but rather summarizing the relevant
28 allegations of the Complaint for purposes of evaluating Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
|
1 ||“die” on a “stage,” which could be done through the use of a robotic device that uses a
2 |/laser to provide accurate placement. Compl., ECF No. 1, 99 24, 51-52. The second claim
3 || alleges infringement of the ‘510 Patent related to Palomar’s accused Die Bonders. Jd. at
4 49-52. .
The ‘611 Patent is entitled “Apparatus for Generating Patterns on Workpieces.”
6 Compl. Ex. J, ECF No. 1-12. The invention includes a pick-and-place tool containing a
7 position determining unit” that helps provide accurate placement of a die. Compl., □
8 ||27. The third claim alleges infringement of the ‘611 Patent. Id. at § 64.
9 The ‘795 Patent is entitled “Pick-and-Place Tool.” Compl. Ex. K, ECF No. 1-13. □
10 || The ‘795 Patent is a continuation of the ‘611 Patent, and also concerns a pick-and-place
11 |/tool containing a “die position determining unit.” Jd. At issue here is the ‘795 Patent’s
12 || limitation that the pick-and-place tool be “further configured to output the position
13 }\information to an external patterning tool.” Jd. at Col. 16:56-59. The fourth claim
14 alleges infringement of the ‘795 Patent. Compl., ECF No. 1, { 74.
15 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
16 A. Legal Standard
17 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be
18 || granted where the pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When
19 |\ considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must “accept as true facts alleged and draw
20 ||inferences from them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Stacy v. Rederite Otto
21 || Danielsen, 609 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must not merely allege
22 conceivably unlawful conduct but must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
23 plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim
24 |\is facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
25 || draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”
26 || Zixiang Liv. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
27 || U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Jgbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
1 The parties disagree about how this standard is applied to patent cases. Compare
2 ||Mot., ECF No. 20-1, 13-16 and Reply, ECF No. 25, 2-3 with Opp’n., ECF No. 24, 11-14.
3 Palomar urges the Court to adopt a pleading standard requiring allegations that “permit a
4 || court to infer that the accused product infringes each element of at least one claim” of the
> ||asserted patent. Mot., ECF No. 20-1, 13 (quoting Scripps Research Inst. v. Hlumina, Inc.,
6 || 16-cv-661-JLS-BGS, 2016 WL 6834024, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016)). MRSI asks
7 Court to follow the Federal Circuit’s holding in Nalco Company v. ‘Chem-Mod, LIC,
8 || where the court stated “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff to
9 || plead facts establishing that each element of an asserted claim is met.” 883 F.3d 1337,
10 |] 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
11 Palomar argues that after the abrogation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Form
12 || 18 on December 1, 2015, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Nalco is “no longer
13 jJapplicable.” Reply, ECF. No. 25, 2. Nalco was decided on February 27, 2018, mote than
14 ||two years after the abrogation took effect. 883 F. 3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Nonetheless,
15 Palomar argues Nalco is not applicable because the complaint there was filed before the
16 || abrogation of Form 18, and “thus the Federal Circuit applied the earlier Form 18 pleading
17 ||requirement.” Reply, ECF No. 25,n 1. This is simply incorrect. Instead, the Federal
18 || Circuit said in Nalco it “need not resolve” the question of whether Form 18 provides the
19 relevant pleading standard because the complaint at issue was “sufficient under the
20 || current version of the Federal Rules and those cases interpreting those rules.” Nalco, 883
21 ||F. 3d at 1347 n.2.
22 This Court stated in Small Axe Enterprises, Inc. v. Amscan, Inc., “[w]ith the
23 || abrogation of Form 18, the normal plausibility pleading standard of Twombly and Igbal
24 || governs in patent cases.” 16-cv-00981-BEN-WVG, 2017 WL 1479236, *4 n. 3 (Apr. 25,
25 ||2017). This Court, however, declined to adopt an “each element” pleading requirement
26 || because the complaint at issue failed to allege sufficient facts under even the Twombly
27 Iqbal standard. Id. at *3, Noting the Federal Circuit has still not weighed in on this
28 |\issue, this Court again declines to adopt an “each element” pleading requirement. As will
.
1 || be discussed below, however, MRSI’s Complaint plausibly alleges sufficient facts to □
2 || support infringement of each of the four patents-in-suit under either test.
3 B. Analysis
4 MRSI’s first claim alleges direct and indirect infringement of the ‘710 Patent.
5 ||Compl., Doc. No. 1, (32. The Complaint specifically identifies five of Palomar’s
6 || accused products that allegedly infringe on claims 1 and 26 of the ‘710 Patent. /d. at J
7 ||33. It further provides extensive factual support for its claims. Jd. at 9] 34-40. Palomar
8 argues the Complaint fails to allege “a sufficient factual bases [sic] to support any
9 || contention that the accused products use a prori nominal appearance data as required by
10 ||claims 1 and 26.” Mot., ECF No. 20-1, 17. Palomar’s argument is based on its own
11 |/interpretation of the ‘710 Patent’s claims. Jd. These objections to “infringement read
12 || like classic Markman arguments,” and are best suited for claims construction. Nalco, 883
13 F.3d at 1349. Moreover, it is not appropriate to decide factual disputes on a motion to
14 dismiss. 7d. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied with respect to alleged
15 || infringement of the ‘710 Patent. .
16 MRSI’s second claim alleges direct and indirect infringement of the ‘510 Patent.
17 ||Compl., ECF No. 1, 48. The Complaint specifically identifies two of Palomar’s
18 |) accused products that infringe on claim 17 of the ‘510 Patent. Jd. at 4 48-51. Palomar
19 || argues MRSI has not alleged “that the ‘stages’ are moveable in either the x or y direction
20 ||nor does MRSI allege the workpiece is somehow scraped across the stage in an x or y
21 || direction.” Mot., ECF No. 20-1, 18. MRSI alleges each limitation in claim 17 of the
_ 22 |}*510 Patent is infringed in Palomar’s named accused products. Compl., ECF No. 1, 79
23 |/51-54. “Tt is irrelevant at this stage whether Plaintiff's allegations are accurate, as the
24 || Court accepts all of Plaintiff's allegations as true... The Court only requires that Plaintiff
25 || plausibly alleges that a product or products of Defendant infringes on at least one claim
26 || of the [asserted] patent.” Scripps Research Inst., 2016 WL 6834024, at *6, quoting
27 Telesign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc., No. 16-cv-2106-PSG-SSX, 2016 WL 470873, at *4 (C.D.
28 Aug. 3, 2016). MRSI has plausibly alleged Palomar’s accused products infringe
. 5
1 || each element of claim 17 of the ‘510 Patent. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is
2 || denied with respect to alleged infringement of the ‘510 Patent. .
3 MRSI’s third claim alleges direct and indirect infringement of the ‘611 Patent.
4 || Compl., ECF No. 1,59. The Complaint specifically identifies that at least Palomar’s
5 3880 Die Bonder, an accused product, infringes on claim 1 of the ‘611 Patent. Id. at 60.
6 further provides extensive factual support for its claims. Jd. at J] 31-46, 60-64.
7 || Palomar argues the Complaint fails to.allege the accused products contain an image
8 || writer or an image write controller that is configured to generate adjusted pattern data.
9 || Mot., ECF No. 20-1, 19. The Court finds the allegations contained in the Complaint
10 plausibly state a claim for infringement. MRSI alleges Palomar’s 3880 Die Bonder has
11 || an image write controller that uses Palomar’s VisionPilot system, which plausibly
12 || generates adjusted pattern data. Compl., ECF No. 1, § 63. The relevant portion □□ the
13 || Complaint specifically references the VisionPilot system and plausibly describes a theory
14 || of infringement. Jd. Palomar’s argument that the Complaint misidentifies an epoxy
15 || dispenser as an image writer is likewise unavailing. Mot., ECF No. 20-1, 19. This isa
16 || factual argument not appropriate for a motion to dismiss. Nalco, 883 F.3d at 1349.
17 || Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied with respect to alleged infringement of the
18 || ‘611 Patent.
19 MRSI’s fourth claim alleges direct and indirect infringement of the ‘795 Patent.
20 ||Compl., ECF No. 1, 769. The Complaint specifically identifies Palomar’s accused
21 || products, of which there are only six, as.the products that infringe on claim 1 of the ‘795
22 ||Patent, /d. at It further provides extensive factual support for its claims. Id. at [9
23 || 31-46, 58-67, 70-73. Palomar argues the Complaint fails to allege the accused products
24 || use “an adjusted pattern based upon adjusting original pattern data” and “is devoid of any
25 || allegation that [one accused product] is configured to ‘output’ the position information to
26 an ‘external patterning tool.” Mot., ECF 20-1, 20. As with the ‘611 Patent discussed
27 || above, the Court finds the allegations plausibly state a claim for infringement. MRSI
28 |/ alleges the accused products use Palomar’s VisionPilot system, which plausibly generates
1 adjusted pattern data. Compl., ECF No. 1, 9 63. The relevant portion of the Complaint
2 {| specifically references the VisionPilot system and plausibly describes a theory of
. 3 |/infringement. /d. at 72-73. Palomar’s argument regarding the “external patterning
4 || tool” is again not appropriate for a motion to dismiss. Nalco, 883 F.3d at 1349.
5 || Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied with respect to alleged infringement of the
6 ||‘795 Patent.
7 CONCLUSION
8 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is
9 || DENIED.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 || Dated: july Z- 22050 Lz
12
Hn. er T. Benitez
13 United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 . :
21 || : □
22
23
24
25 ||
26
27
28