Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01102/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01102-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB

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

CYWEE GROUP, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff CyWee Group, Ltd. (“CyWee”) alleges 

Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics 

MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “LG”) infringed and continue 

to infringe on its ownership rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,441,438 and 8,552,978. 

Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 49.) 

The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 06/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB

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

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff Cywee is a technology company whose core development areas are 

motion processing, wireless high-definition video delivery, and facial tracking 

technology. It builds products and provides services to consumers and businesses. 

Cywee is the named assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,441,438 (“the ’438 Patent”) and 

8,552,978 (“the ’978 Patent”).

2

 The ’438 Patent, entitled “3D Pointing Device and 

Method for Compensating Movement Thereof,” was issued on May 14, 2013. The ’978 

Patent, entitled “3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Rotations of the 3D 

Pointing Device Thereof,” was issued on October 8, 2013. 

Cywee alleges Defendants make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import into the 

United States products that infringe its rights to the ’438 and ’978 Patents, including: LG 

V20, LG Stylo 3, LG Stylo 3 Plus, LG G5, LG G6, LG X Mach, LG X Venture, LG X 

Power 2, and LG X Cam (collectively, “the Accused Products”). Cywee specifically 

asserts the Accused Products infringe on at least Claim 14 of the ’438 Patent and Claim 

10 of the ’978 Patent, and generally asserts the Accused Products infringe one or more 

other claims of the patents-in-suit. As a result, Cywee alleges Defendants are liable for 

direct or indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and seeks enhanced damages for 

alleged willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Defendants contend Cywee’s FAC 

must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

 

1 The following overview of the facts are drawn from the allegations of Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 45, “FAC”), which the Court assumes true for 

purposes of evaluating Defendants’ motion. The Court is not making factual findings.

2 The Court takes judicial notice of the information available from a public search 

of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) website regarding the 

patents-in-suit. See USPTO Website, Abstract of U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438, available at

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm; Abstract of U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978, 

available at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm; see also Reyn’s Pasta 

Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts may take 

judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record). 

Case 3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 06/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint 

if, taking all factual allegations as true, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for 

relief on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). Dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to 

state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of 

the matter complained of, or if the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory under which 

relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. 

“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). While the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s 

favor, it need not “necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they 

are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 

F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

DISCUSSION

To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff asserting a claim for patent 

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) must plausibly allege that the defendant, “without 

authority[,] makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 

271(a); see also Scripps Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 16-CV-661-JLS (BGS), 

2017 WL 1361623, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017) (same). 

Defendants assert dismissal is appropriate because claim 14 of the ’438 Patent and 

Claim 10 of the ’978 Patent are not patentable matter as a matter of law. The Court finds 

Defendants’ motion premature. Generally, “[d]etermination of an infringement claim 

involves a two-step inquiry. ‘First, the claims are construed, a question of law in which 

the scope of the asserted claims is defined.’” Discflo Corp. v. Am. Process Equip., Inc., 

Case 3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 06/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB

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

No. 11-CV-00476-BTM (RBB), 2011 WL 6888542, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011)

(quoting Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., 261 F.3d 

1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “Second, the claims, as construed, are compared to the 

accused device . . . . This is a question of fact.” Id. “The two-step process of ‘[c]laim

construction and infringement analysis should not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.’” 

Id. (quoting Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Intern., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 868, 890 (N.D. Cal.

2011)).

The Court recognizes that in certain circumstances dismissal of a patent 

infringement action is appropriate because it is obvious from the face of the complaint 

that a patent’s subject matter is not patentable. Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 

F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, the Court is not persuaded that this is such a 

circumstance. The FAC identifies the patents at issue, the allegedly infringing products, 

the claims allegedly infringed by the products, and alleges Defendants offer to sell and/or 

sell the allegedly infringing products. The Court finds Plaintiff has met its pleading 

burden. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for direct 

infringement is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01102-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 06/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4