Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00234/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00234-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cornucopia Products, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Dyson, Inc. and Dyson, Ltd., 

Defendants. 

Lead No. CV 12-00234-PHX-NVW

Consolidated With: 

Dyson Technology Limited; Dyson, Inc., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Cornucopia Products, LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV 12-00924-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are Cornucopia’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 

61) and Dyson Defendants’ response and alternative Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) and to Strike Pursuant to Rule 12(f) (Doc. 63). 

After Dyson Defendants included an alternative motion in their response, 

Cornucopia was ordered to address Dyson Defendants’ entire brief, including the 

alternative Motion to Dismiss, in its reply supporting its Motion for Leave to Amend. 

(Doc. 64.) It was further ordered that: 

[I]f Plaintiff Cornucopia contends that any further amendment 

would cure the challenges raised in Defendant Dyson’s 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-NVW Document 70 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

Response, the language of any further amended pleading be 

stated in exact words in the reply or an attachment thereto. 

Cornucopia will waive any claim to further amendment not so 

stated. 

(Doc. 64.) Cornucopia filed a Brief in Opposition to Dyson’s Alternative Motion to 

Dismiss and in Support of Cornucopia’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 67), which 

includes a request to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint. 

For the reasons stated below, Cornucopia’s Motion for Leave to Amend 

Complaint and request to file a Second Amended Complaint will be denied, and Dyson 

Defendants’ alternative Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and to Strike 

Pursuant to Rule 12(f) will be denied as moot. 

I. CLARIFICATION OF JULY 27, 2012 ORDER (DOC. 57) 

Dyson Defendants request clarification of the July 27, 2012 Order (Doc. 57) 

regarding Cornucopia’s declaratory judgment claim (Count V). The Order stated, “As to 

the ’449 and ’111 patents, Cornucopia’s declaratory judgment claim is not mooted as a 

matter of law by Dyson’s election not to enforce those patents,” but incorrectly 

referenced the ’166 and ’379 patents when it said, “Cornucopia has therefore stated a 

controversy sufficient for declaratory relief with respect to the ’166 and ’379 patents.” 

The conclusion should have stated, “Cornucopia has therefore stated a controversy 

sufficient for declaratory relief with respect to the ’449 and ’111 patents.” 

The first paragraph of the Order stated that the Court would “deny Dyson’s motion 

as to Cornucopia’s declaratory judgment claims.” The Order granted Dyson Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss in part as specifically stated regarding Counts I, II, III, and IV, and 

otherwise denied the Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, the Order did not dismiss 

Cornucopia’s declaratory judgment claim (Count V) as to any of the four patents. 

Also, it is necessary to clarify that the July 27, 2012 Order (Doc. 57) did not make 

findings regarding the legitimacy or enforceability of Dyson’s patents. The following 

statements made by Dyson Defendants in their brief (Doc. 63) opposing Cornucopia’s 

motion to amend are incorrect and misstate the July 27, 2012 Order: “lawful 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-NVW Document 70 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

enforcement of patents that this Court held were obtained legitimately,” “holding that 

Dyson obtained those patents legitimately and was entitled to enforce them,” “Dyson’s 

legitimate enforcement of patents that (1) this Court has held were obtained lawfully,” 

“lawfully obtained patents,” “other patents that this Court has held were lawfully 

obtained,” and “Dyson is free to enforce its design patents, or any of the ’449, ’166 or 

’111 Patents against competitors selling potentially infringing bladeless fans.” (Doc. 63 

at 4, 5, 8, 9, 10.) Dismissal of Cornucopia’s antitrust and tortious interference claims 

does not constitute finding any of Dyson’s patents legitimate or enforceable. 

II. PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The July 27, 2012 Order (Doc. 57) dismissed most of Cornucopia’s original 

complaint, but left the door open to amendment with respect to the ’379 patent.1

 (Doc. 

57 at 22–23.) The ’379 patent requires “a center of gravity located so that when the base 

is located on a substantially horizontal support surface, a projection of the center of 

gravity on the support surface is within the footprint of the base when the body is in a 

fully tilted position.” ’379 Patent, col. 13, ll. 22–26. In other words, the fan’s nozzle can 

tilt upward or downward without shifting the fan’s center of gravity, thus helping the fan 

to remain stable in a tilted position. 

Cornucopia’s original complaint claimed that Japanese number S56-167897 

anticipated the ’379 patent, and that Dyson intentionally obfuscated the Japanese patent’s 

relevance by submitting an English translation of its abstract only (as opposed to the 

whole patent), thus committing fraud on the Patent Office and opening the way for a 

Walker Process theory of liability. But Cornucopia’s complaint did not explain how the 

Japanese patent disclosed the ability to tilt while keeping the center of gravity constant. 

At oral argument, Cornucopia’s counsel quoted vague language from the Japanese 

patent about the ability to adjust the base stand’s angle of elevation. (See Doc. 54 at 

117.) The Court noted that such language says nothing about the ability to tilt while 

 1

 U.S. Patent No. 8,052,379. 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-NVW Document 70 Filed 09/18/12 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

keeping the center of gravity constant (Doc. 57 at 22), but out of an abundance of 

caution, Cornucopia’s Walker Process claim was dismissed without prejudice as to the 

’379 patent. Cornucopia timely filed this motion for leave to amend. 

Cornucopia’s proposed amended complaint does not cure the defects of its original 

complaint. Cornucopia’s burden is to raise a reasonable inference that “the patent would 

not have issued but for the misrepresentation or omission.” Nobelpharma AB v. Implant 

Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In an attempt to meet that 

burden, Cornucopia offers only the following three passages from its translation of the 

Japanese patent: 

 “The electric fan according to claim 1 [a bladeless fan], wherein the wind 

dischsrge [sic] ring is supported in a manner such that the angle of 

elevation can be adjusted on the base stand.” 

 “with the present embodiment, the heavy motor 2 is stored inside the base 

stand 1 together with the fan blades 5, so the stability of the entire device 

can be similarly increased, and the shape can be more freely determined 

from aesthetics than is conventional because there is no need to struggle to 

ensure the stability, and therefore the design can be simplified.” 

 “Note, the present embodiment can also provide the following effects in 

addition to those described above. First, the wind discharge ring 13 is 

supported on the base stand 1 in a manner such that the angle of elevation 

can be adjusted, so the wind direction can be set as desired in the up and 

down direction.” 

(Doc. 61-1 at 8–9.) 

None of these passages discloses anything similar to the tilting mechanism taught 

in the ’379 patent. At best, these passages disclose two things. First, they disclose that a 

user can direct the nozzle upward or downward. However, it is inconceivable that the 

patent examiner would not have known that fans have been able to do this for many 

years. Thus, learning it from the Japanese patent would have been superfluous. 

Second, these passages disclose that the whole bladeless fan apparatus supposedly 

is generally more stable than conventional fans because the fan’s heaviest parts (the 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-NVW Document 70 Filed 09/18/12 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

motor in the blades) reside in the base. This says nothing about “a center of gravity 

located so that when the base is located on a substantially horizontal support surface, a 

projection of the center of gravity on the support surface is within the footprint of the 

base when the body is in a fully tilted position.” ’379 Patent, col. 13, ll. 22–26. 

This does not mean that the Japanese patent is irrelevant to this lawsuit. Through 

Cornucopia’s declaratory judgment claim (Count V of the original complaint), 

Cornucopia may eventually prove that the Japanese patent anticipates many features of 

the ’379 patent or the other patents at issue here. However, to maintain a Walker Process

claim, Cornucopia must at least raise a reasonable inference that the three passages from 

the Japanese patent disclosed above — which is all the language Cornucopia is willing to 

disclose in support of its claim — would have led a patent examiner to reject the ’379 

patent. Those passages do not raise such an inference. Amendment by the proposed 

Amended Complaint would therefore be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962). 

III. PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The proposed Second Amended Complaint does not cure the defect found above. 

Although it includes the English translation of JP-897 as an attachment, its allegations 

regarding JP-897 remain the same, and Cornucopia was warned that any further 

amendment not included in its proposed Second Amended Complaint would be waived. 

However, Cornucopia will be granted leave to add Dyson Technologies, Ltd., as a 

Defendant and the additional allegations regarding Dyson Technologies, Ltd., included in 

paragraph 2 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Cornucopia’s Motion for Leave to Amend 

Complaint (Doc. 61) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cornucopia’s request to file its proposed 

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 67) is DENIED. 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-NVW Document 70 Filed 09/18/12 Page 5 of 6
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts I, II, and III are dismissed with 

prejudice to the extent they assert a Walker Process antitrust theory based on Dyson’s 

conduct in obtaining U.S. Patent No. 8,052,379. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dyson Defendants’ alternative Motion to 

Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and to Strike Pursuant to Rule 12(f) (Doc. 63) is 

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cornucopia may file an amended complaint 

adding Dyson Technologies, Ltd., as a Defendant and the additional allegations regarding 

Dyson Technologies, Ltd., included in paragraph 2 of the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint, by September 21, 2012. 

Dated this 18th day of September, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-NVW Document 70 Filed 09/18/12 Page 6 of 6