Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01692/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01692-2/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01692-EJD (VKD)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS; 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 95

Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collectively, “Uniloc”)1sue 

defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), alleging infringement of claims 1-3 and 5-11 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,587,207 (“the ’207 patent”), titled “Data Delivery Through Beacons.” Dkt. No. 1. The accused 

products include various Apple products, such as iPhones, iPads and iPods. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 

95-4. Apple now moves to strike Uniloc’s indirect infringement contentions, arguing that 

Uniloc’s contentions do not comply with Patent L.R. 3-1. The matter is deemed suitable for 

determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b); Dkt. No. 103.

Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, the Court grants the motion to 

strike with leave to amend. The Court also orders Uniloc to show cause why it should not be 

required to reimburse Apple for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs Apple incurred in 

bringing the motion to strike.

1 Plaintiffs state that all rights, interest, and title in the ’207 patent, including the right to all causes 

of action, have been transferred to Uniloc 2017 LLC. They have a pending motion to add Uniloc 

2017 LLC as a plaintiff to this action. Dkt. No. 98.

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 1 of 8
2

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

Northern District of California

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Patent Local Rule 3-1 requires, among other things: 

[A] party claiming patent infringement shall serve on all parties . . . 

the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions” 

[which] shall contain the following information:

(a) Each claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly 

infringed by each opposing party, including for each claim 

the applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C. § 271 

asserted; 

(b) Separately for each asserted claim, each accused 

apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other 

instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality”) of each 

opposing party of which the party is aware. This 

identification shall be as specific as possible. Each product, 

device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or model 

number, if known. Each method or process shall be 

identified by name, if known, or by any product, device, or 

apparatus which, when used, allegedly results in the practice 

of the claimed method or process;

(c) A chart identifying specifically where and how each 

limitation of each asserted claim is found within each 

Accused Instrumentality, including for each limitation that 

such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the 

identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the 

Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed 

function[;]

(d) For each claim which is alleged to have been indirectly 

infringed, an identification of any direct infringement and a 

description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that 

contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. 

Insofar as alleged direct infringement is based on joint acts 

of multiple parties, the role of each such party in the direct 

infringement must be described.

Patent L.R. 3-1. Compliance with this rule requires the plaintiff “to crystallize its theories of the 

case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once disclosed.” Bender v. Advanced 

Micro Devices, Inc., No. 09-cv-1149-MMC (EMC), 2010 WL 363341, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 

2010). It “takes the place of a series of interrogatories that defendants would likely have 

propounded had the patent local rules not provided for streamlined discovery.” Network Caching 

Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., No. 01-cv-2079-VRW, 2002 WL 32126128, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 

2002).

“[A]ll courts agree that the degree of specificity under [Patent] Local Rule 3-1 must be 

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 2 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sufficient to provide reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff believes it has a 

‘reasonable chance of proving infringement.’” Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 

F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 

208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The local rules do not “require the disclosure of specific 

evidence nor do they require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case,” but “a patentee must 

nevertheless disclose what in each accused instrumentality it contends practices each and every 

limitation of each asserted claim to the extent appropriate information is reasonably available to 

it.” DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. 11-cv-03792-PSG, 2012 WL 1309161, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 16, 2012).

“Striking a patentee’s infringement contentions is a severe sanction that should be used 

sparingly and only for good cause.” Avago Techs., Inc. v. IPtronics Inc., No. 5:10-CV-02863-

EJD, 2015 WL 4647923, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). As a result, “motions to strike 

initial infringement [contentions] are frequently treated as motions to compel amendment of the 

infringement contentions.” Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-CV-02463-WHO, 

2017 WL 76950, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2017).

II. DICUSSION

Apple contends that Uniloc’s indirect infringement contentions are boilerplate and generic 

and do not comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1(d), which requires Uniloc to disclose “[f]or each 

claim which is alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an identification of any direct 

infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that contribute to or are 

inducing that direct infringement.” Uniloc’s contentions state, in relevant part:

Other direct infringers of the system claims would be nonApple users who put the infringing system into operation by 

activating those features. Apple contributed to that infringement by 

installing on the devices the software that provides the accused 

functionality. Apple induces infringement by providing instructions, 

such as those illustrated in Exhibit A, on how to activate the 

infringing features.

Apple directly infringed the device claims by making, 

offering to sell, selling, importing, and using the accused devices. 

Other direct infringers of the device claims would be anyone else 

who resold the Apple devices, or who used the accused devices, 

including to perform the claimed functionality. Apple would 

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 3 of 8
4

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

Northern District of California

contribute to and induce that direct infringement for the same 

reasons as above.

Apple directly infringed the method claims when it used both 

devices to perform the claimed steps as, for example, in the Apple 

store example, discussed above. Apple also directly infringed when 

it used the beacon device, which causes the receiving device to 

automatically perform the step not performed by the beacon device. 

To the extent there was other direct infringement as, for example, 

when two employees of the same entity were the users of both 

devices, or when someone other than Apple used the beacon device 

to cause the receiving device to automatically perform the 

remaining step, Apple would contribute to and induce that entity’s 

or person’s direct infringement for the same reasons as above.

Dkt. No. 95-4 at 3-4 (emphasis added)2.

A. Induced Infringement

With respect to induced infringement, Apple argues that Uniloc’s contentions are 

insufficient because they do not state which instructions, advertisements, or promotions led to 

what infringing behavior; provide the identity of the alleged other direct infringers; or say how 

Apple supposedly knew the acts it induced constituted infringement. A party asserting induced

infringement must prove that: (1) a third party directly infringed the asserted claims of the patent; 

(2) the accused infringer induced those infringing acts; and (3) the accused infringer knew the acts 

it induced constituted infringement. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, 

Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). To satisfy the knowledge 

requirement, either actual knowledge or willful blindness is required. Global-Tech Appliances, 

Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 786 (2011).

Uniloc largely ignores Apple’s arguments and focuses its opposition on the fact that its 

infringement contentions reference an Apple iBeacon user guide, a portion of which is appended 

as Exhibit A to Uniloc’s contentions. See Dkt. No. 95-5. Noting that the guide states that it 

provides “suggested uses and best practices to help ensure a highly effective deployment,” Uniloc 

argues that Apple itself prepared that guide and therefore “would have well known its contents” 

and “would have known [that Uniloc] had identified Apple’s user guide as containing specific 

instructions, advertisements or promotions that lead to infringing behavior.” Dkt. No. 99 at 2-3.

2 All pin cites are to the page number that appears on the ECF header on the cited document. 

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 4 of 8
5

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

Northern District of California

Uniloc’s contentions are deficient and must be amended to identify which specific instructions, 

advertisements, or promotions Uniloc contends led to what infringing behavior. See, e.g., Uniloc 

2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-01904-WHO, Dkt. No. 80 at 14 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019)

(“Merely pointing to support and instructions that Apple provides for using AirDrop is not enough 

to describe Uniloc’s indirect infringement theory.”); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. OpenTV, 

Inc., No. C16-06180 WHA, 2017 WL 2630088, at *5 (“In other words, boilerplate language that 

simply claims an accused infringer provided instructions on, advertised, or promoted the use of an 

accused product, without describing which instructions, advertisements, or promotions led to what 

infringing behavior, does not suffice under [Patent L.R.] 3-1(d).”); Cap Co. Ltd. v. McAfee, Inc.,

No. 14-cv-05068-JD, 2015 WL 4734951, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) (finding plaintiff’s 

recitation of defendant’s indirect infringement through “sale and customer support and instruction 

of its customers” and website that does not reference the accused functionality insufficient under 

Patent Local Rule 3-1(d)); Blue Spike, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 14-cv-01647-YGR (JSC), 

2015 WL 335842, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (“Moreover, although Blue Spike included 

advertisements for Adobe’s products in support of its [infringement contention]s, it neither 

specifies which particular product each advertisement endorsed nor indicates which advertisement 

led to infringing behavior. Such circumstances create only insufficient boilerplate allegations of 

indirect infringement.”). 

With respect to identification of alleged direct infringers, Uniloc’s contentions are also 

deficient. While Patent Local Rule 3-1 does not necessarily require the disclosure of specific third 

parties committing an alleged act of direct infringement, see DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, 

No. C 11–03792 PSG, 2012 WL 1309161, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012), as discussed above, 

“[c]ompliance with this rule requires [Uniloc] to crystallize its theories of the case early in the 

litigation,” Bender, 2010 WL 363341 at *1 (internal quotations and citation omitted), and Uniloc’s 

contentions must “provide reasonable notice to [Apple] why [Uniloc] believes it has a reasonable 

chance of proving infringement,” Shared Memory Graphics LLC, 812 F. Supp. at 1025 (internal 

quotations and citation omitted). Here, Uniloc’s contentions are stated hypothetically, suggesting 

that Uniloc may not have a basis to contend that there actually are “other direct infringers.” See

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 5 of 8
6

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

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 95-4 at 3-4 (stating that “[o]ther direct infringers of the system would be non-Apple users 

. . . and “anyone else who resold the Apple devices”; “[t]o the extent there was other direct 

infringement as, for example, when two employees of the same entity were the users of both 

devices, or when someone other than Apple used the beacon device . . ..”) (emphasis added). Such 

speculative assertions are insufficient to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1. See generally, e.g., 

Solannex, Inc. v. Miasolé, Inc., No. 11-CV-00171–PSG, 2013 WL 1701062, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

18, 2013) (“The plaintiff cannot simply respond with nothing more than a conclusion based on 

information and belief that something exists or occurs.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); 

Bender v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. C 09-01152 SI, 2010 WL 1135762, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 22, 2010) (“While plaintiff’s statements may not be untrue, they are based on 

assumptions. The Court will not order defendant to produce proprietary schematics for over 200 

products based on an assumption.”).

Uniloc does not respond to Apple’s argument that Uniloc’s contentions include no 

assertion that Apple knew the acts it induced constituted infringement. If Uniloc has a basis to 

contend that Apple had the requisite knowledge to support a claim of induced infringement, it 

should so state and should identify the bases for such contention.

B. Contributory Infringement

Apple argues that Uniloc’s contributory infringement contentions are similarly deficient 

because they are based solely on the allegation that Apple installs software on its products. See

Dkt. Nos. 95, 95-4. Contributory infringement involves the sale of a component especially 

designed for use in a patented combination or process. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (“Whoever offers to 

sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, 

combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, 

constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially 

adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of 

commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”). 

To succeed on a contributory infringement claim, the patentee must prove that: (1) a third party 

directly infringed the asserted claims of the patent; (2) the accused infringer had knowledge of the 

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Northern District of California

patent; (3) the component has no substantial non-infringing uses, and (4) that the component is a 

material part of the claimed invention. Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010). As with induced infringement, “contributory infringement requires knowledge of the 

patent in suit and knowledge of patent infringement.” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 

S. Ct. 1920, 1926 (2015).

Uniloc does not offer any argument in opposition to Apple’s arguments. Instead, citing to 

a prior order of this Court, Uniloc seems to acknowledge that its contentions are not sufficient. 

See Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 19-cv-01929-EJD (VKD), 2020 WL 978678, at *6 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 28, 2020) (“For contributory infringement, Uniloc must describe how the [accused]

feature is especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the asserted claims and not a 

staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.”). Uniloc now 

offers to amend its contributory infringement contentions to include the following text:

The Accused Products include software that provides the ability to 

receive (or send) an inquiry message implementing the iBeacon 

protocol, determine when an additional data field has been added to 

that message, and read location information from that data field. 

The software written to provide that ability and thus adopt the 

claimed features is especially made or adapted for use in 

infringement of the ’207 patent because it performs no other 

function, and thus has no substantial non-infringing use.

Dkt. No. 99 at 4. 

Uniloc’s proposed amendment still does not adequately disclose the factual bases for its 

theory of contributory infringement, including facts supporting Uniloc’s contention that the 

iBeacon technology “performs no other function [other than claimed features], and thus has no 

substantial non-infringing use,” and how that technology is a material part of the claimed 

invention. See Fujitsu Ltd., 620 F.3d at 1326. In addition, Uniloc’s contributory infringement 

contentions, like its induced infringement contentions, do not identify the alleged direct infringers 

or state whether and how Apple knew that its conduct contributed to others’ direct infringement.

C. Leave to Amend

Uniloc does not respond to Apple’s argument that Uniloc served non-compliant 

infringement contentions after it had been advised on several prior occasions that similar 

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Northern District of California

contentions do not meet the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-1. Uniloc’s meager opposition to 

Apple’s motion to strike strongly suggests Uniloc knew its original contentions were deficient 

when served. This conduct is inconsistent with Uniloc’s obligations to provide timely and 

complete contentions and to pursue its claims in good faith. While striking Uniloc’s indirect 

infringement contentions, as Apple requests, would be justified in these circumstances, the Court 

will exercise its discretion to permit Uniloc leave to amend. However, Uniloc must show cause 

why it should not be required to reimburse Apple for its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses 

incurred in bringing the motion to strike Uniloc’s indirect infringement contentions.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Apple’s motion to strike Uniloc’s indirect 

infringement contentions, with leave to amend the contentions as specifically permitted above. In 

granting leave to amend, however, the Court observes that the present order is not the first time 

that Uniloc has been advised of the requirements for compliance with Patent L. R. 3-1. Uniloc is 

ordered to show cause why it should not be required to reimburse Apple’s attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in bringing the motion to strike.

Uniloc must serve its amended infringement contentions no later than May 11, 2020. 

Uniloc also must respond to this Court’s order to show cause no later than May 11, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 104 Filed 04/27/20 Page 8 of 8