Resolution of t his motion to dismiss does not addre ss or portend resolution of t he pendingmotion 1 to apply Ger man law. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) HTC CORP ORATION, et al . , ) ) P laintif fs an d, ) Counterc laim -De fend ants, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1897 (RM C) ) IP COM G MBH & CO., K G, ) ) De fend antand ) Counterc laim -P laintif f. ) )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Def endant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff I PCom Gmbh & Co. (“ I PCom ”), K G, moves to dismiss the inequitable c onduct counter claims and to strike the ine quitable conduc t affir mative defe nses asser

ted by Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-D efe ndants HTC Corporation and H TC America , I nc. (c ollectively

“HTC”) . I PCom contends that HTC fa ils to pl ead ine quitable conduc t w i t h the particula rity require d by

Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 9(b) and Ex e rg e n Co rp orati on v . W al- Ma rt Stores, Inc. , 5 75 F .3 d 1 31 2 ( F e d. Cir . 200 9)

. Th e Court wi ll g ra nt the mot ion

in p a rt a nd de ny it i n pa rt

. 1 I. F AC TS

T h i s i s a p at en td i s p u t e i n wh i ch HT C s ee k s a d ec l ar at i o n t h at i t d o es n o ti n fr i n ge I PCom ’s U. S. Pate nt N o. 5, 39 0, 21 6 ( “ ’2 16 Pa te nt” ), tit le d Sy nc hr on iza tio n Met

ho d o f a Mo bil e Radiotelephon e. I PCom alre ady has sued HT C under Ge rman patent law base d on the Ger manSee Pl.’s and Counterclaim-D ef.’ s Am. Answer & D ecla ratory J . Countercls (“ Pl.’s Am. Answer” ) 2 [D k t. # 6 0 ] a t 3 , ¶ 2 1 ( “ H T C a d mi ts th a t in A p r il 2 0 0 8 , I PC o m in it iate d p r o c e e d in g s in Germany ag ainst HTC Corporation for infring ement of the Europea n counter parts of the ’216 pate nt and the ’751 pate nt, and I PCom initiated p ro ce eding s ag ainst cer tain wirele ss service providers f or using HTC phones in violation of the Europe an counte rpar ts of the ’216, ’751 a

nd ’830 pate nts.”). -2- counterpart to the ’216 Pate nt, among others. I PCom responde d to HTC’s complaint by filing 2

c ounte rc la ims a sse rt ingtha t H TC v iol a te s it s ’ 21 6 Pate nt and tw o ot hers owe d b y I PCom , U .S. Pat ent No. 7,043,751 (“ ’751 Patent”) , titled Method of Allocating Acc ess Rights to a Telec ommunications Channel to Subscriber Station s of a Te lecommunications Ne twork and Subscriber Station, and U.S. Pate nt N o. 6,879,830 (“’ 830 Patent”), titled Me t h o d fo r H andover , Mobile Station for Handover and Base Station for Handover

. HTC answe red the counter claims and

asser te d , a mo n g o th e r s , a n a f f ir mati v e d e f

e n s e th a t th e th r e e Pate n ts , f o r d if f e r in g r e a s o n s, are unenfor cea

ble due to inequitable conduct. See Pl.’s Am. Answer ¶ ¶ 40-82. The same a lleg ations

are contained in HTC’s counterclaims. Id. at 20 (De clar atory J udg ment Counterclaims). I PCom has fi le d a mot ion to d ism iss a ll a lle g a tio ns of ine qu ita ble c on du c t; i n r e sp on se , H TC h a s w ith dr a wn its Six th A ffirmative Def

ense reg arding the unenfor cea bility of the ’216 Pate nt. See HT C’ s O pp ’n to I PCom ’s Mot. to Dismis s (“HT C’s Opp’n”) [Dkt # 87] at 1, n.1. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. He igh te ne d P le adi ng U nde r F e de r al R ule 9( b) I PCom ’s ar g ument that HTC’s counter claims fail to state a claim upon which r elief can be g rante d is based on its belief that HTC has fa iled to satisfy the heig htened r equire ments for pleading fra

ud as set for

th in Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). While Rule 8 require s that ever y

c omp la int inc lud e “ a

sh or t and pla in s ta te me nt o f t

he c la im s ho wi ngthat th e ple a de r i s e nti tle d to relief ” and that “ea ch averment of a pleading be simple, concise, a nd direc t,” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 8(a) ,-3-

Rule 9(b) re quires any

party alleg ing f raud or mistake to “ state with pa rticularity the circ umstances constituting fr aud or mistake. Malice, intent, know ledg e, and other c onditions of a person’ s mind may be alleg ed g ener ally .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). These r ules are not contrar

y to o n e an o t h er, but should be rea d in conjunction. United States ex rel. W illiams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. , 389 F.3d 1251, 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Th e F e de ra l Cir c uit

ha s h e ld t

hat “ in p le a din g ine qu ita

ble c on du c t in pat ent ca se s, Rule 9(b) r e qu ir e s id e n ti f ic a ti o n o f th e s p e c if

ic w h o , w h a t, w h e n , w h e r e , an d h o w o f th e material misrepre sentation or omission committ ed bef ore the PTO.” Exe rgen Corp. v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 575 F.3d 1312, 1327 ( Fe d. Cir. 2009). Also, while Rule 9 allows “[m] alice, intent, knowledg e, and other c onditions of a person’ s mind [to] be alleg ed g ener ally ,” “‘g ener ally ’ is a relative term. I n the context of Rule 9, it is to be compared to the particularity require ment applicable to fra ud or mistake. Rule 9 merely

excuses a part y fr o m pleading discriminatory intent under a

n elevated pleading standard.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1954 (2009). “Pleading on ‘information and belief’ is p e rm itt e d und e r Rule 9( b) wh e n ess e nti a l inf or ma tio n li e s uniq

ue ly wi thi n a no the r p a rt

y ’s c on tr ol, but o n ly if th e p le a d in g s e ts f o rth th e s p e c if

ic f a c ts u p o n w h ic h th e b e li e f is r e a s o n a b ly based.” Exe rgen , 575 F.3d at 1330.

B. T he P at e nt App lic at ion P r oc e ss An application for a patent must be submitt ed to the Dire cto r o f t he United States Pa te nt a nd Tr a de mark

Of fi c e (“ PTO ” ). 37 C.F .R. § 1. 51 (a ). A c omp le te pate nt a pp lic a tio n in c lud e s: a spec ification includi ng one or more claims; an oath or de clar ation that the applica nt believes h i m s e l f t o b e t h e o r i g i n a l i n v e n t o r o f t h e p r o c e s s o r i n v e n t i o n t o b e p a t e n t e d ; dr a w i n g s , i f n e c e s s a r y; and the “ prescri b ed filing fee , sear ch fe e, examination fee , and application siz e fe e.” 37 C.F .R. §-4-

1. 51 (b ); see 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 & 115. A claim specific ation must contain a written de scription of the invention to be patented and the pr ocess of making and using it, in “full, clear , concise , and exact te rm s” su c h th a t any

pe rs on sk ill e d in th e a rt

to w hic h it

pe rt a ins c ou ld m a ke a nd

us e it. 35 U. S.C. § 112. The claim or claims included in the s pecif ication m ust point out the specific subject matter which the a

pplicant believe s is his i nvention. Id. “Individuals associated w ith the filing an d p rosecution of a pate nt application,” a s such per sons are define d in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) , have a duty to disclose to the PTO any information materia l to the “patenta

bility ” of the ir claims. Id. § 1.56. A paten t by

its ve ry natur e is a ff

e c te d w itha

pu bli c int e re st. Th e pu

bli c inte r e s t i s b e s t s e r

v e d , a n d th e mo s t e f

f e c ti v e p a te n t e xa mi n a ti o n o c c urs when, at the time a

n application is being examined, the Offic e is awa re of a n d e v a l u a t e s t h e t e a c h i n g s o f a l l i n f o r m a t i o n m a t e r i a l t o p a t e n t a b i l i t y. Each individual associated with the fili ng and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith i n dealing with t he Office, which includes a duty t o disclose t o the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section . . . . The du ty to d isc los e a ll i nfo rma tio n k no wn to b e mate ri a l to pate nta bil ity is de e me d to be sa tis fi e d if a ll i nf or ma tio n k no wn to be ma te ri a l to patentability

of any claim issu ed i n a patent was cited by the Off ice or submitt ed to the Of

fice in the manner presc ribed by §§ 1.97(b)- (d) or 1.98. Howeve r, no pa te nt w ill

be gr an te d o n a n a

pp lic ati on in c on ne c tio n wi th which fraud on the Office was practiced or att empted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad fait h or intentional misconduct

. Id. § 1.56(a) (empha ses adde d). “Abrea ch of [the duty of ca ndor and g ood faith], which brea ch ca n include affirmative misreprese ntations of m ater ial fac ts, failure to disclose material infor mation, or

su bmi ssi on of fa lse ma te ri a l inf

or ma tio n, c ou

ple d with a n inte nt to de c e ive , c on sti tut e s in e qu ita ble conduct” and can re nder a patent unenf

orce able. Li Sec ond Family L.P. v. Toshiba Corp. , 231 F.3d 1373, 1378 & 1381 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000).

I nf or ma tio n is ma te ri a l if

it t e nd s to pr ov e that the a pp lic a nt’ s c la im i s unp a te nta ble-5-

or cha lleng es a position the applica nt takes in asser

ting the pa

tentability

of his claim. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(b). “The threshold showing of mater iality . . . can be met by

showing a re asonable examiner would have c onsidered such information i mportant in deciding whether to allow t he application.” A ve n t i s Pharma S.A. v. Am phastar Pharms., Inc. , 176 Fe d. Appx. 117, 119-20 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (c i t i n g Digital Control, Inc

. v. Charles Mach. W orks , 437 F .3 d 130 9, 13 16 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 6) ); Molins Plc v. Tex tron , 48 F.3d 1172, 1179 ( Fe d. Cir. 1995) (“[T]he standard to be applied in deter mining whether a re ference is ‘materia l’ is not whether the particula r examiner of the application at issue considere d the refer ence to be im portant; rathe r, it is that of a ‘r easona ble examiner.’” ). Howe ver, information is not considere d “mater ial to patentability ,” and is ther efor e not subject to disclosure, when it is cumulative of infor mation alrea dy

included in the re cord of the patent prosec ution. See 37 C.F .R. § 1 .5 6( b) ; Star Sci., Inc. v . R.J. Re ynolds Tobacco Co. , 537 F.3d 1357, 1367 ( Fe d. Cir. 2008) (“ I t is well-established, however, that information is not material if it is cumulative of other information alre ady

disclosed to the PTO.”).

III . A NA LY SIS As to t he ’8 30 a nd

’7 51 Pa te nts , H TC b a sic a lly a lle g e s th a t th e pate nt a

pp lic a nts fa ile d to dis c los e ma te ri a l pr ior a rt to t he PTO and

thu s c omm itt e d fr a

ud on the PTO

. I PCom

re tor ts that Exe rgen tig hte ne d the sta nd a rd s for ple a din gine qu ita ble c on du c t un de r F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Procedur e 9(b) and that HTC’s plea dings f ail under the new standa

rds. A. ’8 30 P at e nt HTC argues that during the prosec ution of the Ger man application that corre sponds to t he ’8 30 Pa te nt, the Euro pe a n Patent Offi ce issue d a se a rc h r e po rt

ide nti fy inga pr ior a rt U. S. patent and concluded that the claims of t he corresponding Ger man application lacked nove lty overThe Court take s judicial notice of the PTO ple ading s. A court may take judicial notice of cour t 3 documents and other publi c records. See Cov ad Comms. Co. v. Bell Atlantic Corp. , 407 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per mitti ng judicial notice of fac ts in public rec ords of other p ro ce ed i n gs); Jane Does I Through III

v. District of Columbia, 238 F. Supp. 2d 212, 216-17 (D .D.C. 2002) (c ourt may take judicial notice of public re cords of prior litigation). -6- the identified prior art. Be cause the patent applicants for the ’830 Patent in the United States failed to disc lose this prior art, they alleg edly violated 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 (Rule 56 of the PTO) a nd there by committed fraud.

Howeve r, without reg ard to the e ffe ct of Exe rgen on this a rea of patent law, the PTO alre ady has re examined the ’830 Patent and rejec ted HTC’s argument. On J uly 21, 2009, the PTO fo un d th a t th e “ Mc Do na ld P a te nt” — th e pr ior a rt re fe re nc e ide nti fi e d by HT C in c on ne c tio n w ith the ’8 30 Pa te nt — is cumul a tiv e a nd fa ils to r a ise ne w i ssu e s. Thus , “ a re a so na ble e xami ne r w ou ld not consider the te aching s of the McDonald patent important in dec iding to allow the c laims being considere d.” De f.’s Reque st for Judi cial Notice [Dkt. # 69], Ex. H at 10 (PTO Dec ision Granting Reexamination at 8) (empha sis in orig inal). The fact that the European P atent Office c oncluded that 3 the Mc Do na ld P a te nt w a s mate ri a l c a nn ot m a ke the pate nt a pp lic a nts ’ f

a ilure to s ub mit

it i n

c on ne c tio n w iththe ’8 30 Pa te nt i n the U ni te d St a te s a fr a ud , w he n th e PTO ha s f

ound it m e re ly cumulative of other ava ilable and submitted information. The PTO c oncluded that “ [i ]t is not ag ree d that McDona ld raised a

[subs tantial new que stion] o f p at en t ability as to claims 1-18 of the [’830] pate n t. Pa

rti c u la r ly , M c D o n a ld f

a il s to te a c h th o s e s ig n if

ic a n t li mi tati o n s d is c u s s e d a b o ve, thus McDona ld is cumulative, thereby also failing to raise a

ny new issues.” Id. There is no fraud w hen a missing ref ere nce is mer ely

cumulative. See 37 C.F.R. § 1. 56 (b ); Star Sci., Inc. , 537 F.3d at 1367. HTC’s counter claim and af firmative de fense that inequitable conduc t rende rs the ’830 Pate nt unenforc eable will be dismiss ed and stric ken.-7- B. ’ 75 1 P at e nt As to the ’7 5 1 P at ent, HTC’s Amende d Answer and Counterc laims identify three prec ise standards documents as t he prior art that was not submitt ed to the PTO. See Am. Answer ¶ 58. HTC spec ifically acc uses cer tain named inventors of the ’ 751 Patent, id. ¶ 52, and e x plains wh e re , whe n, a nd ho w the se inv e nto rs a lle g e dly be c a me a wa re of the do c ume nts that w e re wi thh e ld from the PTO. Id. ¶¶ 59- 60. These alleg ations clea rly provide sufficie nt notice to I PCom to allow it to prepare its defense

. Fur thermore , HTC has satisfied Exe rgen’s “who, what, when, whe re, a nd how” standard with respe ct t o pleading inequitable conduc t. Exe rgen , 575 F.3d at 1327 (noting that it was “following the lead of the Seventh Circuit in fra ud case s, [and .

. .] hold[ing] that in plea ding inequitable conduc t in

p a te n t c ases, Rule 9(b) require s identification of the spe cific w ho, what, whe n, wher e, and how of the material misrepr esentation or omissi on committed before the PTO”). H TC

a lso ha s me t Exe rgen ’s require ment that when a party makes alleg ations on information and be lief, its be liefs are rea sonably

supported by

fac ts. Exe rgen , 575 F .3 d at 133 0. F or e xamp le , H TC a lle g e s, on information and be lief, that “the GSM 04.60 standards we re a lso known to [ two named inventor s of t he patent] ” and explains the basis for this belief — the se standar ds were ref ere nced in a

meeting

a t w hic h at le a st on e inv e nto r wa s lis te d a s a pa rt ic ipa nt. Am . A ns we r ¶

60 . T hu s, HT C’ s c la ims fully comport with Rule 9(b).

I PCom seeks to avoid this conc lusion by argu i n g t hat the prior a

rt ref ere nces a re leng thy and HTC has not prove n that the named inventors rea d the particula r pag es of the sta

ndards do c ume nts that are re le va nt. Suc h ar g ume nts , how e ve r, c on fu se the burd e ns of pr oo f at tr ia l w ith the pleadingrequire ments of Rule 9(b). See B artronics, Inc. v. P ower-One , Inc. , 245 F.R.D. 532, 537 n.3 (S.D. Ala. 2007) ( patentee ’s motion to d i s m i s s acc used infring er’ s inequitable conduc t-8-

pleading s were denied in par t beca use “[w]hil e B artronic s is co rr ec t t h at def endants must prove knowledg e and intent at trial in order to pre vail on this theory of re lief, they

are under no oblig ation to make such a

n onerous showing at t he pleadings stage

. Plaintiff’s argument confuse s these ver y distinct burdens.”). While Bartronics prec eded Exe rgen , the Court does not rea d Exe rgen to have aff ecte d its anal y s i s . P T O Ru l e 56 is still on t he books and a ddresse s the possibili ty that a pate nt applicant may

unfairly obtain a pate nt beca

use it hid prior art f

rom the PT O. Exe rgen adopted a heig htened plea ding sta

ndard, f ully met by HTC’s pleading s conce rning the ’751 Patent; it did not oth er wi s e al t er the burdens of proof. The ref

ore, I PCom ’s motion to dis miss and strike HTC’s inequitable conduc t counterc laims and aff irmative def

enses r eg ardingthe ’751 Paten t w il l be denied. IV . C ON CL USI ON For the re as o n s stated above , the pending motion to di smiss and strike HTC’s inequitable conduc t counterc laims and affirmative defense s [Dkt. # 67] will be gra nted i n part a

nd de nie d in pa rt

. Th e mot ion is c on c e de d a s to the ’2 16 Pa te nt, wi ll b e g ra nte d a s to the ’8 30 Pa te nt, and will be denie d as to the ’751 Patent

. A m em o ri ali zing orde r ac companies this memora ndum opinion.

Date : De c e mbe r 3 , 2 00 9 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge