Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02173/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02173-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLEY, INC., a Washington

corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2173 WQH (CAB)

ORDER

vs.

5.11, INC., a California corporation, and

WILEY X, INC., a California corporation,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Oakley’s Second Amended

Complaint filed by Defendants Wiley X, Inc. and 5.11, Inc. (ECF No. 25).

BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”) initiated this action by filing

the Complaint for patent infringement. (ECF No. 1). On November 22, 2011, Oakley filed

an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11). 

On April 17, 2012, this Court granted a motion to dismiss the amend complaint. (ECF

No. 19). The Court found that Oakley’s allegations that “eyewear” manufactured and sold by

the Defendants knowingly, intentionally and willfully infringes Oakley’s ownership rights in

the ‘949, D572, and D686 patents did “not provide Defendants with sufficient information

regarding the features or designs that allegedly infringe upon Oakley’s patents.” Id. at 5. 

On July 9, 2012, Plaintiff Oakley filed a second amended complaint alleging that

Oakley has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling several lines of eyewear

- 1 - 11cv2173 WQH (CAB)

Case 3:11-cv-02173-WQH-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

since at least 1985. (ECF No. 24 at ¶ 8). Oakley currently holds two patents Patent No.

D543,572 (“the D572 patent”), entitled “Eyeglass”; and Patent No. D384,686 (“the D686

patent”), entitled “Eyeglass Front.” (ECF No. 24 at ¶¶ 9, 10). The second amended complaint 

alleges that “Defendants have received written notice of Oakley’s proprietary rights in the D

572 and D868 patents as early as July 25, 2011” and that “Oakley has provided constructive

notice of its patent rights to the public by causing its patents to be placed on patented products

and/or packaging.” (ECF No. 24 at ¶¶ 11, 12, 13). 

The second amended complaint alleges that “Defendants manufacture, use, sell, offer

for sale and/or import into the United States eyewear that infringe Oakley’s intellectual

property rights” specifically identifying the claim that the Defendants Deflect sunglasses

infringe the D572 patent and that the Defendants’ Ascend sunglasses infringe the D686 patent.

(ECF No. 24 at ¶¶ 15, 17). Oakley alleges claims for willful and intentional infringement of

each of its patents. 

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss the second amended complaint

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Oakley fails to allege facts to support willful

infringement. Defendants contend that the second amended complaint fails to allege facts

sufficient to establish that Defendants acted with objective recklessness or had the subjective

intent to infringe. Oakley contends that the allegations in the second amended complaint

satisfy the pleading requirements. Oakley asserts that the complaint identifies the specific

products alleged to infringe and sufficiently alleges Defendants’ knowledge of the issued

patents before the action was filed.

APPLICABLE STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a) provides: “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal

- 2 - 11cv2173 WQH (CAB)

Case 3:11-cv-02173-WQH-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all “well-pleaded

factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). The

complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sprewell v. Golden

State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the court need not “accept as true

unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations.” Id.

RULING OF THE COURT

“[T]o establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convincing

evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions

constituted infringement of a valid patent.” In re Seagate Technology, Inc., 497 F.3d 1360,

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, the issue at this stage in the proceedings is limited to the

sufficiency of the pleadings. The second amended complaint identifies the specific products

alleged to infringe and alleges that the Defendants’ had written notice of the issued patents

before the action was filed. (ECF No. 24 at ¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 15, 17). The Court concludes that

second amended complaint sufficiently alleges willful infringement. See Sentry Prot. Prods.

Inc. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 400 F.3d 910, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Sentry’s pleading that the

‘infringements have been willful and with full knowledge of the ... patents’ was sufficient”);

Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2009 WL 186194, at *7-8 (S. D. Cal. Jan.20, 2009) (Plaintiff

alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for willful infringement where “plaintiff

identifies the specific accused product... and alleges that defendants had actual knowledge of

the patents in suits.”). 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Wiley X,

Inc. and 5.11, Inc. (ECF No. 25) is denied.

DATED: October 29, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv2173 WQH (CAB)

Case 3:11-cv-02173-WQH-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/29/12 Page 3 of 3