Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00585/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00585-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOVATEL WIRELESS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF No. 12)

Pending before the Court is Defendant Novatel Wireless Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff Anza Technology Inc.’s Complaint1for patent infringement (Compl., ECF No. 

1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Mot., ECF No. 12.)2 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

Complaint does not meet the pleading standard for patent infringement because it fails to 

 

1 This case is one of several related cases that Anza has filed. The other case numbers are 

3:16-cv-01260, 3:16-cv-01261, 3:16-cv-01262, 3:16-cv-01263, 3:16-cv-01264, 3:16-cv01265, 3:16-cv-01266, and 3:16-cv-01267. Anza’s allegations are largely the same for 

each Defendant.

2 Defendant initially filed a motion to dismiss at docket number 10, but later on the same 

day filed a corrected motion at docket entry 12. The Court will consider the motion filed 

at docket number 12 and therefore finds the motion at docket entry 10 to be moot.

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 11
2

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

“identify specific products and specific details as to how those products allegedly infringe 

the asserted patents.” (Mot. at 1.) Thus, Defendant contends that the Complaint “fails to

provide Novatel with fair notice of Plaintiff’s claims.” (Id.) For the following reasons, 

the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. 

BACKGROUND3

Anza Technology, Inc. (“Anza”) is a California corporation with its headquarters 

located in Rocklin, California. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Anza “is a designer, manufacturer, and 

seller of bonding tools, ESD tools and other products directed to the manufacture and 

assembly of electronics, in particular the bonding of electrostatic-sensitive devices 

(ESDs).” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe certain method claims 

in two patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,124,927 (“the ’927 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 

7,389,905 (“the ’905 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Anza is owner, by 

assignment, of the entire right, title, and interest in and to both patents. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.) 

The ’927 patent is entitled “Flip Chip Bonding Tool and Ball Placement 

Capillary,” and the allegedly infringed independent claim 16 is directed to a “method of 

utilizing a flip chip bonding tool and ball placement capillary in a microelectric 

assembly.”4 (Id. Ex. A.) The ’905 patent is entitled the “Flip Chip Bonding Tool Tip.” 

 

3 The Court is not making any findings of fact, but rather summarizing the relevant 

allegations of the Complaint for purposes of evaluating Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

4 The full text of claim 16 of the ’927 patent provides:

16. A method of utilizing a flip chip bonding tool and ball placement 

capillary in a microelectronic assembly, comprising: 

providing a bonding machine capable of being equipped with a flip 

chip bonding tool and ball placement capillary having a tip comprised of a 

dissipative material, the dissipative material having a resistance low enough 

to prevent a discharge of a charge to a device being bonded and high enough 

to stop all current flow to the device being bonded; 

equipping the bonding machine with the flip chip bonding tool and 

ball placement capillary; 

providing a bonding material that is thermally and electrically 

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 11
3

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

(Id. Ex. B.) Plaintiff alleges infringement of independent claims 53 and 55, which are 

directed to a “method for using a flip chip bonding tool in microelectronic assembly” and 

a “method of using an electricaLy [sic] dissipative flip chip bonding tool lip [sic], having 

a resistance in the range of 102and 1012 ohms,” respectively.5 (Id.)

 

conductive; 

melting the bonding material so that the bonding material becomes 

substantially spherical in shape; and 

electrically connecting at least one component to a substrate by means 

of pressing the substantially spherical-shaped bonding material, the 

substantially spherical bonding material being pressed to form a conductive 

bump. 

(Compl. Ex. A.)

5 The full text of claim 53 of the ’905 patent states:

53. A method for using a flip chip bonding tool in microelectronic assembly, 

comprising: 

providing a flip chip bonding machine capable of being equipped with 

a flip chip bonding tool;

equipping the flip chip bonding machine with the flip chip bonding 

tool, wherein the flip chip bonding tool has a tip comprised of a dissipative 

material wherein the dissipative material has a resistance low enough to 

prevent a discharge of a charge to a device being bonded and high enough to 

avoid current flow large enough to damage the device being bonded;

providing a bonding material that is thermally and electrically 

conductive; 

melting the bonding material so that it becomes substantially spherical 

in shape; and 

electrically connecting an [sic] at least one component to a substrate 

by means of the flip chip bonding tool tip pressing the substantially 

spherical-shaped bonding material against a chip bond pad, wherein the 

substantially spherical bonding material is pressed to form a conductive 

bump.

(Compl. Ex. B.) 

The full text of claim 55 of the ’905 patent provides:

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 3 of 11
4

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

Novatel Wireless, Inc. (“Novatel”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place 

of business in San Diego, California. (Id. ¶ 7.) The Complaint identifies that 

Defendant’s accused products “include but are not limited to [Defendant’s] wireless 

hardware based Mobile to Mobile (‘M2M’) and Mobile Broadband products sold under a 

Novatel brand or as manufactured and sold under other brands that are manufactured 

utilizing a ‘flip-chip’ bonding process (the ‘Accused Products’).” (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendant Novatel “designs, manufactures, and/or assembles products that 

depend on high density Integrated Circuit (‘IC’) chips that require special Electrostatic 

Discharge (‘ESD’) handling in the Accused Products assembly process.” (Id. ¶ 9). 

Plaintiff further pleads that the “Accused Products utilize a flip chip bonding technique 

during manufacture and/or assembly. Flip chip bonding is used for packaging integrated 

circuit devices utilized in the Accused Products and dissipative materials are required 

during handling so as to reduce electrostatic discharge damage to important components.” 

(Id. ¶¶ 15, 22.) According to Plaintiff, “[f]lip chip bonding in the manner described in 

claim[s] 16[, 53, and 55] has become the standard for mounting ESD-sensitive devices in 

order to decrease parasitic resistance, inductance, and capacitance. The method[s] of 

 

55. A method of using an electricaLy [sic] dissipative flip chip bonding tool 

lip [sic], having a resistance in the range of 102to 1012 ohms, comprising: 

providing an electrically dissipatite [sic] flip chip bonding tool tip; bonding a 

material to a device; establishing a potential between the electrically 

dissipative flip chip bonding tool [] tip and the device being bonded, wherein 

establishing the potential between the electrically disspative flip chip 

bonding tool tip and the device being bonded comprises grounding leads on 

the device being bonded; and [] allowing an essentially smooth curient [sic] 

to dissipate to the device, the current being low enough so as not to damage 

the device being bonded and high enough to avoid a build up of charge that 

could discharge to the device being bonded and damage the device being 

bonded.

(Id.)

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 4 of 11
5

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

claim[s] 16[, 53, and 55] to reduce damage to ESD-sensitive devices [are] reflected in a 

number of manufacturing standards.” (Id. ¶¶ 16, 23.) 

“Defendant manufacturers [sic] and assembles the Accused Products or contracts 

with others to manufacture and assemble the Accused Products in compliance with one or 

more of these ESD standards.” (Id. ¶¶ 17, 24.) Additionally, “Defendant manufactures 

and assembles the Accused Products utilizing conductive adhesive, such as solder, as 

packaging interconnects in the Accused Products. The packaging interconnects are 

formed over the wafer in the form of bumps or balls, spherical in shape, which bumps are 

electrically and thermally conductive. The packaging interconnects—or solder balls—are 

heated and pressed against die or substrate pads to form a conductive bump or contact 

point between the die and the flex.” (Id. ¶ 18; see also id.¶ 25.) 

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges that the “Accused Products, alone or in 

combination with other products, directly or alternatively under the doctrine of 

equivalents infringe each of the limitations of independent claim 16 of the ’927 patent 

[and independent claims 53 and 55 of the ’905 patent] in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) 

when Defendant imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the 

United States a product which is made by the processes described above.” (Id. ¶¶ 19, 

26.)

DISCUSSION

I. The Applicable Legal Standard: Form 18 No Longer Applies and 

Twombly/Iqbal Controls

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), courts must dismiss 

complaints that “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). The Court evaluates whether a complaint supports a cognizable legal theory 

and states sufficient facts in light of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires 

a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. In patent cases, courts previously looked to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 84, which in turn referred to “forms in the Appendix.” See Rembrandt Patent 

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 5 of 11
6

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

Innovations LLC v. Apple Inc., Nos. C 14-05094 (WHA), C 14-05093 WHA, 2015 WL 

8607390, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2015); In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012) (“[T]o the extent the parties argue that Twombly and its progeny conflict with 

the Forms and create differing pleadings requirements, the Forms control.”). One form in 

the Appendix was Form 18, a sample complaint for patent infringement that “merely 

included an allegation that the defendant infringed the asserted patent by making, using, 

or selling ‘electric motors’ without specifying the model of the accused motors.” 

Rembrandt Patent, 2015 WL 8607390, at *2. In 2012, the Federal Circuit held that a 

complaint sufficiently pleads direct infringement if it follows Form 18. In re Bill of 

Lading, 681 F.3d at 1336.

The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules abrogated Rule 84, with the notation 

that it was “no longer necessary.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 Advisory Committee’s note to 

2015 amendment; RAH Color Techs. LLC v. Ricoh USA Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05203-JCJ, 

2016 WL 3632720, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2016). The 2015 Amendments took effect 

December 1, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; RAH Color Techs. LLC, 2016 WL 3632720, 

at *2. The abrogation of Rule 84 and, in turn, Form 18 means that the Rule 8 pleading 

standards as construed by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 

and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) govern in patent cases. See, 

e.g., Footbalance Sys. Inc. v. Zero Gravity Inside, Inc., No. 15-cv-1058 JLS (DHB), 2016 

WL 5786936, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) (applying Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards 

in light of Rule 84’s abrogation); Rembrandt Patent, 2015 WL 8607390, at *2 (“Rule 84 

has been abrogated, so In re Bill of Lading no longer controls.”); Tannerite Sports, LLC 

v. Jerent Enters., LLC, No. 6:15-cv-00180-AA, 2016 WL 1737740, *5 (D. Or. May 2, 

2016) (“Form 18 is no longer on the table; the Court will apply the Twombly/Iqbal 

pleading standard.”); Rah Color Techs. LLC, 2016 WL 3632720, at *3 (“Following the 

reasoning of In re Bill of Lading, it appears the Federal Rules’ amendment abrogating 

both Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms means that claims of direct infringement are 

now also subject to the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.”).

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 6 of 11
7

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). “A claim is facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff 

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Zixiang Li v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion, the court must “accept as true facts alleged and draw inferences from them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Stacy v. Rederite Otto Danielsen, 609 F.3d 1033, 

1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Barker v. Riverside Cnty. Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 

(9th Cir. 2009)). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more 

than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 

‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. 

In patent cases, purely procedural issues of law are governed by the law of the 

regional circuit. K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 

1282 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the Ninth Circuit, to be entitled to the presumption of truth, a 

complaint “must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and 

to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1216 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012). The Court will grant leave to 

amend unless it determines that no modified contention “consistent with the challenged 

pleading . . . [will] cure the deficiency.” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 

655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992).

II. Sufficiency of the Pleading: Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails for Lack of Specificity

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes the ’927 and ’905 patents when 

Defendant, “without authority[,] imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or 

uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United 

States.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). The parties agree that liability under § 271(g) is subject to 

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 7 of 11
8

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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 same pleading standard as direct infringement under § 271(a). (Mot. at 11-12; Opp’n 

at 3 (citing McRo, Inc. v. Rockstar Games, Inc., Nos. 12-1513-LPS-CJB, 12-1517-LPSCJB, 12-1519-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 1051527, *1 (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2014)).) 

To survive a motion to dismiss, “[s]ufficient allegations [of direct infringement] 

would include, at a minimum, a brief description of what the patent at issue does, and an 

allegation that certain named and specifically identified products or product components 

also do what the patent does, thereby raising a plausible claim that the named products 

are infringing.” Bender v. LG Elec., No. C 09-02114, 2010 WL 889541, at * 6 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 11, 2010). In the Ninth Circuit, the accused products must be identified with “at 

least minimal specificity” so as to adequately put the defendant on notice of the claims 

against it and the grounds upon which those claims rest. Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. 

Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. C 11-04049, 2012 WL 1030031, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016) 

(granting motion to dismiss where plaintiff failed to identify “particular products, product 

lines, or product components that allegedly infringed); Wistron Corp. v. Phillip M. Adams 

& Assocs., LLC, No. C-10-4458, 2011 WL 4079231, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) 

(granting motion to dismiss for failure to specify which products allegedly infringe where 

counterclaimant pled infringement of “computer chips, motherboards, computers, and 

‘other products’”); Bender, 2010 WL 889541, at *4 (citing cases holding that factual 

allegations must identify the specific products accused); see also Patent Harbor, LLC v. 

DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., No. 6:11-cv229, 2012 WL 9864381, at *4 (E.D. Tex. 

July 27, 2012) (“[C]ases involving ‘more nebulous, less tangible inventions such as 

computer software methods’ may require a higher degree of specificity to provide proper 

notice to the defendant.”). Where the accused products encompass the defendant’s entire 

business, the complaint fails to plead infringement with the requisite specificity. See, 

e.g., Footbalance Sys. Inc. v. Zero Gravity Inside, Inc., No. 15-cv-1058, 2016 WL 

903681, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) (dismissing direct infringement claims where 

plaintiff only identified defendant’s “custom insoles” as the accused product).

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 8 of 11
9

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy the pleading 

requirements for direct patent infringement because “rather than identify specific 

products and specific details as to how those products allegedly infringe the asserted 

patents, Plaintiff merely provides conclusory statements alleging that generic categories 

of [Defendant’s] products infringe certain claims.” (Mot. at 1). According to Defendant, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint “does not adequately identify the allegedly infringing products, the 

allegedly infringing flip-chips within any specific products, or how Novatel products 

allegedly infringe the Asserted Patents.” (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff counters that it has 

sufficiently pled a cause of action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) because it has identified a 

specific method alleged to infringe—the flip chip bonding process—and an identifiable 

category of products—“wireless hardware based Mobile to Mobile (‘M2M’) and Mobile 

Broadband products sold under a Novatel brand or as manufactured and sold under other 

brands that are manufactured utilizing a ‘flip chip’ bonding process.” (Opp’n at 10.)

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently identify the 

Accused Products. Plaintiff alleges that certain hardware chips are made by a process—

flip chip bonding—that infringes the Asserted Patents. But Plaintiff does not allege that 

Defendant manufactured the chips. Rather, some third party makes the infringing chips, 

which are then included in Defendant’s products. (Compl. ¶ 9 (“Defendant designs, 

manufactures and/or assembles products that depend on high density Integrated Circuit 

(‘IC’) chips that require special Electrostatic Discharge (‘ESD’) handling in the Accused 

Products assembly process.” (emphasis added)); ¶ 15 & 22 (“Flip chip bonding is used 

for packaging integrated circuit devices utilized in the Accused Products.” (emphasis 

added)).) The Accused Products are defined as including, but not being limited to, 

Defendant’s “wireless hardware based Mobile to Mobile (‘M2M’) and Mobile Broadband 

products sold under a Novatel brand or as manufactured and sold under other brands that 

are manufactured utilizing a ‘flip-chip’ bonding process.” (Id. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff’s description of the Accused Products provides no specificity about which 

of Defendant’s products include chips made by the infringing process. Worse, it includes 

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 9 of 11
10

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

non-Novatel branded products that include the infringing chips. And the description fails 

to provide sufficient factual information to allow Defendant to identify the specific chips 

made by the infringing process that are included in Defendant’s products. Such broad 

allegations fail to give Defendant notice of what specific products or aspects of its 

products allegedly infringe. See, e.g., Footbalance Sys., 2016 WL 903681, at *4 (holding 

that “these allegations are too broad, such that [they] do not satisfy Form 18 standards, as 

they encompass essentially [defendant’s] entire business, leaving [defendants] with no 

notice as to how [they] allegedly infringe”).

Plaintiff contends that it can use the discovery process to narrow its infringement 

contentions. (Opp’n at 11, 14-15.) It argues that Defendant, rather than Plaintiff, “is in 

the best position to know who manufactures and/or assembles its Accused Products.” 

(Opp’n at 12.) The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. See Apollo Fin., LLC v. 

Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-9696, 2016 WL 3234518, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) 

(granting motion to dismiss and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that access to discovery 

would allow it to state its claims with more specificity). In the post Twombly/Iqbal era, 

the Supreme Court has stated that although “Rule 8 marks a notable and generous 

departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, . . . . it does not 

unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. . 

. . [O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). And, as noted, to state a plausible claim, 

“most courts have, in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal, required some level of specificity

regarding the accused product, i.e., beyond the generic description. . . . Indeed, many 

courts have even required an exact identification.” Footbalance, 2016 WL 903681, at *4. 

Plaintiff fails to satisfy that standard here. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 10 of 11
11

3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS

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

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.6 Because leave 

to amend should be freely given, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, the Court will grant Plaintiff 

leave to file an amended complaint no later than twenty one (21) days after the date of 

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 4, 2016

 

6 The Court notes that Defendant offers additional arguments why the Complaint should 

be dismissed. For instance, Defendant argues Plaintiff must plead each claim element 

and tie those limitations to the Accused Products. (Mot. at 16.) Defendant also contends 

that Plaintiff’s pleading of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is insufficient 

because Plaintiff must make clear “what [is] alleged to be literally infringed and what [is] 

alleged to be infringed by equivalents.” (Mot. at 16 (quoting Macronix Int’l Co. v. 

Spansion, Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 804-5 (E.D. Va. 2014)).) In light of the abrogation of 

Rule 84, courts have split on how much detail must be included in a complaint to state a 

plausible claim. Compare Avago Techs. General IP v. Asustek Computer, Inc., Nos. 15-

cv-04525, 16-cv-00451, 2016 WL 1623920, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016) (“Nothing 

about Twombly and Iqbal suggests that a patent infringement complaint that largely 

tracks the language of the claims to allege infringement is insufficient per se. . . . 

Moreover, this District generally has not required detailed infringement theories until the 

time that infringement contentions are served, which is typically several months after a 

complaint has been filed.”), with Atlas IP LLC v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., No. 15-cv05469, slip op. at 5-8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (dismissing a complaint that recited only 

some of the elements of the sole asserted claim, and provided only a “threadbare” 

description of the alleged abilities of the accused device). This Court need not enter this 

debate because, for the reasons discussed in the text, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently 

identify the infringing products.

Case 3:16-cv-00585-BEN-AGS Document 18 Filed 11/04/16 Page 11 of 11