Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02866/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02866-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

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

FLUORDX LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUIDEL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 14)

Presently before the Court is Defendant Quidel Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss 

(“MTD,” ECF No. 14). Also before the Court are Plaintiff FluorDx LLC’s Response in 

Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 15) and Defendant’s Reply in Support of (“Reply,” ECF 

No. 17) the Motion. After considering the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court 

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff FluorDx, LLC is a California limited liability corporation located in 

Carlsbad, California. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 13. Defendant 

Quidel Corporation is a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in California and 

headquartered in San Diego, California. Id. ¶ 4. 

Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent Number 9,274,056 B2 (the “’056 

Patent”), issued on March 1, 2016. Id. ¶ 5. The ’056 Patent describes an “assay method 

Case 3:18-cv-02866-JLS-AHG Document 20 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

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

for detecting the presence of an analyte in a sample using a test strip and then analyzing 

this strip in a reader that uses an LED light source as the UV excitation source.” Id. ¶ 12.

Robert Hudak and Ian Buchanan are the named inventors of the ’056 Patent. Id. ¶ 5. 

Plaintiff allegedly acquired ownership of the ’056 patent by assignment from Mr. Hudak 

and Mr. Buchanan prior to the litigation. See id.

On December 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that that Defendant infringed 

upon the ’056 Patent by developing, manufacturing, distributing, or selling immunoassay 

test systems. FAC ¶ 14. On February 7, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. See 

generally ECF No. 12. On February 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative FAC. See 

generally FAC. Defendant then filed the current Motion under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring its suit and 

failed to state a claim. See generally MTD.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and as such have an obligation to 

dismiss claims for which they lack subject-matter jurisdiction. Demarest v. United States, 

718 F.2d 964, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). Because the issue of standing pertains to the 

subject-matter jurisdiction of a federal court, motions raising lack of standing are properly 

brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 

(9th Cir. 2000). The “party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction” bears the burden of 

establishing jurisdiction. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 

1993); see also Takhar v. Kessler, 76 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 1996) (“A plaintiff has the 

burden of establishing the elements required for standing.”). 

Rule 12(b)(1) motions may challenge jurisdiction facially or factually. Safe Air for 

Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). “In a facial attack, the challenger 

asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke 

federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the 

allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. When a 

defendant raises a factual challenge, as is the case here, “only uncontroverted allegations” 

Case 3:18-cv-02866-JLS-AHG Document 20 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

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

in the complaint “are accepted as true,” while “[a]ll other facts underlying the controverted 

jurisdictional allegations are in dispute and are subject to fact-finding by the district court.” 

Cedars-Sinai, 11 F.3d at 1583–84 (citations omitted). If the court determines that it does 

not have proper jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action. Id. at 1585. 

ANALYSIS

Defendant contends that “Plaintiff did not have standing to bring [its] patent 

infringement lawsuit when it filed the original complaint” because “Plaintiff did not own 

[the ’056 Patent] at the time the original complaint was filed.” MTD at 6. Plaintiff argues

that its allegations in its FAC alone are sufficient to show standing. Opp’n at 7. Plaintiff 

also contends that if the Court looks beyond the pleadings, the evidence it brought forth to 

oppose Defendant’s Motion shows that it “was the owner by assignment [of the ’056 

Patent] prior to filing” its original complaint. Id. 

“In order to seek damages for infringement of a patent,” Plaintiff must show it had

“standing at the inception of the lawsuit.” Sky Techs. LLC v. SAP AG, 576 F.3d 1374, 1379 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 1574, 1579 (Fed. Cir.

1991)). To show standing, Plaintiff “must demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the 

patent” when it filed suit. Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 

1309–10 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The Federal Patent Act requires that all assignments of patent 

interests be in writing.” Sky Techs., 576 F.3d at 1379; 35 U.S.C. § 261 (“[P]atents, or any 

interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing.”). Thus, to support 

standing, Plaintiff has the burden to show the requisite ownership of the ’056 Patent rights

through a written instrument. See Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359, 

1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff first contends that its allegations in the FAC are sufficient, without any 

supporting evidence, to meet its burden to show standing. Opp’n at 17. In the FAC,

Plaintiff’s only allegation concerning ownership states that “[t]he inventors of the ’056 

patent are Robert Hudack and Ian Buchanan, wh[o] both assigned all their rights in the 

’056 patent to [Plaintiff] prior to the initial filing of this lawsuit.” FAC ¶ 5. Plaintiff 

Case 3:18-cv-02866-JLS-AHG Document 20 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

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

contends it “does not have the burden to plead the entire timeline and factual basis for the 

veracity of its allegation” and that it does not have to prove its allegations of ownership of 

the ’056 Patent at the pleading stage. Opp’n at 17. Plaintiff also contends that only after 

discovery is complete would an attack on the underlying facts support standing be 

appropriate. Id. These contentions are wrong. 

It is proper to bring a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) attacking the factual 

basis of Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations. See Cedars-Sinai, 11 F.3d at 1583–84. And

because Defendant’s Motion “denies or controverts [Plaintiff]’s allegations of 

jurisdiction[,] . . . the allegations of the complaint are not controlling . . . and only 

uncontroverted facts are accepted as true.” Id. (citations omitted). Defendant disputes

Plaintiff’s allegations that the inventors executed signed, written assignments prior to the 

litigation and, thus, Plaintiff’s “allegations alone” concerning the assignments “are 

insufficient to meet the [it]’s burden to establish jurisdiction.” See 3M Co. v. Avery 

Dennison Corp., 673 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Cedars–Sinai, 11 F.3d at 

1584). The Court therefore “must satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for it to exercise 

jurisdiction, and in doing so it ‘may review evidence extrinsic to the pleadings, including 

affidavits and deposition testimony.’” Id.; see also Max Sound Corp. v. Google, Inc., 147 

F. Supp. 3d 948, 952 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Since the facts underlying the controverted 

jurisdictional allegations are in dispute, the court is not restricted to the face of the 

pleadings.”) (quotations omitted). 

Next, Plaintiff contends that it has met its burden to show standing because the 

evidence demonstrates it “received written assignments by both inventors prior to filing 

the lawsuit.” Opp’n at 19. Plaintiff explains, however, that it cannot produce the written 

assignments executed before it filed suit because those assignments were lost. Id. at 18. 

Instead, Plaintiff offers declarations by both Mr. Hudak and Mr. Buchanan that purport to 

explain the chain of events when they assigned their rights in the ’056 Patent to Plaintiff

before the litigation commenced. See Declaration of Robert Hudak (“Hudak Decl.”), ECF 

No. 15-1; Declaration of Ian Buchanan (“Buchanan Decl.”), ECF No. 15-2. 

Case 3:18-cv-02866-JLS-AHG Document 20 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

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

According to the declarations, the inventors completed written assignments, 

transferring their rights in the ’056 Patent to Plaintiff, “around December 12, 2018”

(together, the “Pre-Litigation Assignments). Hudak Decl. ¶ 3; Buchanan Decl. ¶ 3. After 

Mr. Buchanan completed his assignment, he delivered it to Mr. Hudak. Buchanan Decl. 

¶ 3. “On or about December 21, 2018,” a day after Plaintiff filed its complaint, Mr. Hudak 

“realized that [he] had lost both the [Pre-Litigation] [A]ssignments for [him]self and Ian

Buchanan.” Hudak Decl. ¶ 4. After Mr. Hudak notified Mr. Buchanan that he lost the 

assignments, Mr. Buchanan completed a new written assignment before a notary on 

December 24, 2018, and Mr. Hudak completed a new written assignment before a notary 

on January 11, 2019 (together, the “Post-Litigation Assignments”). Hudak Decl. ¶ 4; 

Buchanan Decl. ¶ 4. Mr. Hudak “then delivered these replacement assignments to counsel 

for recording with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.” Id.

Plaintiff sent the Post-Litigation Assignments to the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office for recording on January 21, 2019. See Declaration of William G. 

Gaede, III (“Gaede Decl.”), Ex. A, ECF No. 12-2. The cover sheet to the submission, 

signed by Plaintiff’s counsel, indicates that the execution dates of Mr. Buchanan’s and 

Mr. Hudak’s assignments were December 24, 2018 and January 11, 2019, respectively. Id. 

Notably, the Post-Litigation Assignments do not refer to the lost, Pre-Litigation 

Assignments in any way. See generally id. 

Based on the pleadings and the extrinsic evidence in the record, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to show it owned by assignment the rights to the ’056 

Patent before it filed suit. Plaintiff failed to produce the written agreements necessary to

show it was assigned the rights to the ’056 Patent before the original complaint was filed. 

See Abraxis Bioscience, 625 F.3d at 1366 (“[A]n appropriate written assignment is 

necessary to transfer legal title from one to the other.”). Indeed, the only written 

agreements before the Court that transferred rights in the ’056 Patent are the Post-Litigation 

Assignments executed after Plaintiff filed its complaint. Without the alleged Pre-Litigation 

Assignments, Plaintiff has not produced agreements “from which the Court may recognize 

Case 3:18-cv-02866-JLS-AHG Document 20 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

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

the existence of [assignments] granting . . . rights under the patent at the inception of the 

lawsuit.” Orbit Irr. Prod. v. Sunhills Int’l, No. 1:10-CV-113 TS, 2015 WL 1393232, at *3 

(D. Utah Mar. 25, 2015). Further, the declarations produced by Plaintiff stating that the 

Pre-Litigation Assignments were executed but subsequently lost, do not suffice to meet its 

burden. See Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding 

that to support an assertion of standing, Plaintiff “must produce a written instrument 

documenting the transfer of proprietary rights in the patents”). 

Despite its inability to produce the Pre-Litigation Assignments, Plaintiff contends 

that the Post-Litigation Assignments suffice to show standing. Opp’n at 18. Plaintiff 

contends the Post-Litigation Assignments “were intended to memorialize again what had 

already occurred” and are therefore legally operative as to the date the Pre-Litigation 

Assignments were signed. Id. According to Plaintiff, “[t]he fact that the inventors were 

asked to re-execute assignments afterward does not change the fact that [Plaintiff] was the 

owner of the ’056 patent at the time of filing this lawsuit.” Id. at 19. These contentions

are not supported by the evidence and have no legal merit.

The Post-Litigation Assignments are silent as to the Pre-Litigation Assignments and 

do not contain any language making the assignments retroactive. See generally Gaede 

Decl. And even if the Court were to read a term into the Post-Litigation Assignments that 

made them retroactive to before the litigation, such an assignment would be not be 

sufficient to confer standing. See Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., 134 F.3d 1090, 

1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that retroactive assignments “are not sufficient to confer 

retroactive standing”); see also Gaia Techs., Inc. v. Reconversion Techs., Inc., 93 F.3d 774, 

779 (Fed. Cir.), amended on reh’g in part, 104 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding 

plaintiff’s nunc pro tunc assignment, executed after plaintiff commenced the litigation and 

discovered there was no written assignment memorializing the parties pre-litigation oral 

agreement, was not sufficient to confer standing on plaintiff retroactively).

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-02866-JLS-AHG Document 20 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

18-CV-2866 JLS (NLS)

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

“In sum, [Plaintiff] has not demonstrated that it had standing to enforce the [’056]

patent at the time it initiated this action” and “[i]ts suit for infringement must therefore be 

dismissed.” Max Sound, 147 F. Supp. 3d at 955.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 

No. 14) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s action. The Clerk of 

Court SHALL close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02866-JLS-AHG Document 20 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7