Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
TSI Incorporated
Counter-claimant
Aleksandr L. Yufa
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TSI INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No.: CV 09-01315 KAW

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT TSI 

INCORPORATED'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

AS TO CLAIMS 1-5; GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO 

CLAIMS 6-8

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Aleksandr Yufa filed this action against Defendant TSI Incorporated

alleging patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271-273, 281-299. Defendant has now 

moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. 

No. 77. 

On September 6, 2012, the Court held a hearing, and after careful consideration of the 

parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss for the reasons set forth 

below. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to, if possible, sufficiently 

allege infringement of claims 6, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,346,983 (hereinafter “‘983 Patent”).

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on March 25, 2009, alleging that Defendant’s predecessor-ininterest, Adams Instruments, infringed on Plaintiff’s ‘983 Patent by manufacturing and selling 

wireless communication products believed to be utilizing technologies covered by the ‘983 

Patent. Dkt. 1 at 4.

Before TSI answered the Complaint, the case was stayed pending the ongoing 

reexamination of the ‘983 Patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Dkt. 37. 

During the reexamination, Plaintiff cancelled claim 2, and the PTO rejected claims 1, and 3-5 as 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 90 Filed 09/11/12 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

obvious. Dkt. 62. At the same time, the PTO rejected claims 6-8. Dkt. 44. Plaintiff appealed the 

rejection of all claims to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which affirmed the 

PTO’s determination. Id. Plaintiff appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the rejection of 

claims 1-5, and the invalidity of claims 6-8 were remanded to the PTO for further proceedings. 

Dkt. 62. At the hearing, the parties informed the court that Claims 6-8 survived reexamination 

with modifications.

On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme 

Court was denied, thereby resulting in the cancellation of claims 1-5. Dkt. 73.

On May 29, 2012, the court lifted the stay in this case. Dkt. 75. Defendant filed a motion 

to dismiss on June 11, 2012. Dkt. 77.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Merits of Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

In its motion, Defendant argues that the rejection of claims 1-5 by the PTO, and Plaintiff’s 

failure to plead Claims 6-8, disposes of this action. Def.’s Mot. at 4-5, Dkt. No. 77. The parties 

agree that the PTO’s affirmed rejections of claims 1-5 dispose of those claims. See Pltf’s Opp. at 

4, Dkt. 78. Therefore, the issue before this court is whether Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed 

in its entirety or if he should be afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint to properly plead 

claims 6-8.

A motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the 

claims asserted in the complaint. Navarro v. Black, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 

8(a)(2) requires that a pleading stating a claim for relief contain “a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The function of this pleading requirement 

is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” 

Bell Atl.Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to 

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, 

and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555 (citations 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 90 Filed 09/11/12 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

omitted). In considering a 12(b)(6) motion, “[a]ll allegations of material fact are taken as true and 

construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. “However, conclusory allegations of law and 

unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” 

Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555.

In practice, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those filed by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 

(9th Cir. 1985). Lawyers who regularly practice in federal court often seek to file amended 

complaints, so it would be unfair and prejudicial to deny a pro se plaintiff the same opportunity.

Plaintiff alluded to claims 6-8 in his original complaint as "other claims of the '983 patent" that 

may be later identified through the discovery process. Dkt. 1 at 3-4. 

Due to the uncertainty and expense associated with patent litigation, the Northern District 

has enacted Patent Local Rules, and Rule 3-1 requires early disclosure of infringement 

contentions following the initial Case Management Conference. This matter has not yet 

proceeded to that stage due to the staying of the proceedings pending the PTO’s reexamination of 

the ‘983 Patent. Despite the stay, Defendant was put on notice as to Plaintiff’s intention to amend 

his complaint to include claims 6-8 through correspondence with Plaintiff. Def.’s Mot. at 7, Dkt. 

77; Plf’s Opp. at 3, Dkt. 78. In addition, the parties’ joint status reports included the 

reexamination status of claims 6-8. See Dkt. 62.

Generally, if the court dismisses the complaint, it should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend is made “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by 

the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cook, 

Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990)). In 

patent cases, leave to amend only requires good cause after the early disclosure period has 

commenced. N.D. Cal. Patent Local Rule 3-6. Here, since the matter was stayed, the early 

disclosure stage contemplated by the local rules has not yet begun. Since the case is still in its 

very early stages due to the court's previous stay pending reexamination, there is no compelling 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 90 Filed 09/11/12 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reason to deny Plaintiff's request for leave to amend to definitively allege infringement of claims 

6-8 in his complaint. See Dkt. 78 at 7.

B. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Must Comport with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Patent Local Rules

Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see also Bautista v. Los Angeles 

County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to “plead a short and plain 

statement of the elements of his or her claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise 

to the claim and the elements of the prima facie case.”). 

Rule 8(a) also requires plaintiff to include "a short and plain statement of the grounds for 

the court's jurisdiction...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Plaintiff erroneously lists the chapters in Title 35 

of the United States Code rather than the code sections he contends pertain to this action, and so 

should amend accordingly to include the specific code sections.

Rule 8 also requires that each allegation of a complaint be “simple, concise, and direct.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and 

demand relief. The underlying requirement is that a complaint give “fair notice” of the claim 

being asserted and the “grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007). Despite the flexible pleading policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 

complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). A plaintiff must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant engaged in to support 

plaintiff’s claim. Id. at 649.

Plaintiff’s original complaint ran afoul of Rule 8(a)’s requirement that a complaint set 

forth a “short and plain statement” of Plaintiff’s claims showing that he is entitled to relief, and is 

therefore subject to dismissal. The pleading is also subject to dismissal because it does not 

comply with Rule 8(d)(1)’s requirement that a complaint contain “simple, concise, and direct” 

allegations. The original complaint also does not plainly and succinctly identify the transaction or 

occurrence giving rise to each legal claim and the facts that support the elements of that claim. As 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 90 Filed 09/11/12 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

such, the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts of Defendant’s purported wrongdoing to provide 

fair notice of the claims alleged against them and the grounds upon which those claims rest. 

In the amended complaint, Plaintiff should confine his allegations to the operative facts 

supporting each of his claims. Plaintiff is advised that all that is required under Rule 8(a)(2) is a 

“short and plain statement” of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff is further 

advised that Rule 8(d) requires that any amended complaint must contain “simple, concise, and 

direct” allegations. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to limit his allegations only to the facts that 

are relevant and material to his claims. 

The amended complaint should clearly delineate each legal claim, and state facts 

indicating the nature and grounds for each claim. The amended complaint must also comport 

with Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such that each paragraph must be 

separately numbered. Plaintiff's original complaint ran egregiously afoul of this requirement, 

with numbered paragraphs spanning several pages and others containing improper subsections. 

Dkt. 1. Plaintiff should also avoid providing commentary, case law, and legal argument. Plaintiff 

will have an opportunity to provide additional information and specifics regarding his 

infringement claims during the early disclosure process provided for in the Patent Local Rules. 

See Patent L.R. 3-1 et seq.

Plaintiff should be aware that an amended complaint will supersede or replace the original

complaint and the original complaint will thereafter be treated as nonexistent. Armstrong v. Davis, 

275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 

499 (2005). The first amended complaint must therefore be complete in itself without reference 

to the prior or superseded pleading, as “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint 

which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and all infringement allegations regarding

claims 1-5 of Plaintiff's '983 Patent are dismissed with prejudice.

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 90 Filed 09/11/12 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend to plead infringement of claims 6-8 of the ‘983 

Patent, and shall file a first amended complaint no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of 

this Order. The Court warns Plaintiff that a failure to timely file a first amended complaint that 

complies with this Order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2012

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 90 Filed 09/11/12 Page 6 of 6