UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

FAR NORTH PATENTS, LLC 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANALOG DEVICES, INC., 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-219-ADA 

DEFENDANT ANALOG DEVICES, INC.’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 20
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii 

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

II. Background ......................................................................................................................... 2

A. The Asserted Patents ............................................................................................... 2

B. The Infringement Allegations ................................................................................. 5

III. Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 5

IV. Argument ............................................................................................................................ 6

A. The Complaint Allegation for the Claimed “Time Frame” is SelfContradictory and Thus Facially Implausible ......................................................... 6

B. The Complaint Fails to Plead Any Factual Matter for the Claim 

Requirement to “Defer Transmission” to Another Device ..................................... 9

C. The Complaint Fails to Plead Any Factual Matter for the 

“Uniquely Assigned” Claim Requirement ............................................................ 10

D. The Complaint Fails to Plead any Factual Matter for the Allegation 

Regarding Direct Infringement of the Asserted Method Claims .......................... 12

E. The Complaint Fails to Plead any Factual Matter for the Allegation 

Regarding Indirect Infringement of the Expired Asserted Patents ....................... 13

F. The Complaint Fails to Plead any Factual Matter for the Allegation 

Regarding Willful Infringement ........................................................................... 14

V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 15

 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 20
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases ........................................................................................................................................ Pages 

Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 

570 F. App’x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................................... passim

Associated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. Power Co., 

505 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1974) .......................................................................................................9 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................6, 12, 13, 14 

Bogie v. Rosenberg, 

705 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................9 

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 

496 U.S. 384 (1990) .................................................................................................................10 

De La Vega v. Microsoft Corp., 

No. W-19-cv-00612-ADA, Dkt. No. 29 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2020) (Exhibit 7) ................10, 12 

Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 

544 U.S. 336 (2005) ...................................................................................................................6 

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 

773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................13 

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 

620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................9 

Garzes v. S. San Antonio ISD, 

No. SA-02-CA-1131-FB, 2003 WL 27384528 (W.D. Tex. May 27, 2003) ..............................9 

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 

563 U.S. 754 (2011) .................................................................................................................13 

Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 

6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................13 

Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, 

572 U.S. 915 (2014) .................................................................................................................13 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 20
iii 

National Western Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 

175 F.Supp.2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ......................................................................................8, 9 

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 

418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................13 

Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 

463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................12 

Phoneternet, LLC v. LexisNexis Risk Sols., Inc., 

No. 3:18-CV-1719-L, 2019 WL 4748271 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019) ......................................9 

Rosas v. Bexar Cty., 

No. 5:14-cv-1082, 2015 WL 1955406 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2015) ...........................................8 

Scanlan v. Tex. A&M. Univ., 

343 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................2 

VLSI Tech., LLC v. Intel Corp., 

Nos. 6:19-cv-0254-ADA, -0255-ADA, -0256-ADA, Dkt. No. 52 (W.D. Tex. 

Aug. 6, 2019) (Exhibit 8) .........................................................................................................14 

Other Authorities 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 .................................................................................................................2, 10, 15 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................................................1, 2, 9 

Fed. R. Evid. 902 .............................................................................................................................2 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 20
1 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant Analog Devices, Inc. 

(“Analog”) hereby moves to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Far North Patents, LLC (“Far 

North”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

I. Introduction 

Despite its extensive length, the Complaint allegations focus solely on applying the 

asserted claims to an industry-standard communications protocol, and the Complaint makes no 

attempt to tailor the infringement allegations to any identified features specific to the accused 

products.1 In any event, the Complaint fails to state a claim for patent infringement because the 

Complaint applies the asserted claims in a facially implausible and self-contradictory manner, 

overlooks key claim limitations entirely when inconvenient, and resorts to mere boilerplate 

allegations supported only by conclusory statements. 

By way of example, the Complaint’s allegations that the accused products necessarily 

implement the “time frame” limitation, which is recited in all asserted claims, erroneously relies 

on combining two mutually-exclusive scenarios—specifically, the Complaint alleges that the 

accused products are simultaneously: 1) implementing an optional scheduling feature of an 

industry standard communications protocol, and 2) not implementing that same optional 

scheduling feature. In addition, the Complaint is devoid of any factual support for the allegations 

regarding the claim requirement to “defer transmission” to another device. The Complaint 

similarly lacks factual support for the allegations that the device adapters are each “uniquely 

assigned” to a time phase as claimed. The Complaint also fails to identify any alleged 

circumstances in which Analog supposedly infringed the asserted method claims. Finally, the 

 

1

 Of the 122 pages of the complaint, at least 96 pages detail IEEE standards, with only two portions of the accused 

product’s datasheets replicated multiple times throughout. 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 20
2 

Complaint alleges indirect and willful infringement based on purported willful blindness that is 

unaccompanied by any factual predicate and has been expressly held by this Court to be 

insufficient for both of those allegations. 

Because the Complaint fails to state a claim, Analog respectfully requests that the Court 

grant its motion to dismiss. Furthermore, because the Complaint’s sole infringement theory is 

self-contradictory, any amended complaint would have to contain an entirely new infringement 

theory created out of whole cloth that would thereby confirm Far North’s failure to conduct an 

adequate pre-litigation inquiry as required by Rule 11. Accordingly, Analog asks that the dismissal 

be with prejudice. 

II. Background 

A. The Asserted Patents 

The Complaint alleges infringement of seven claims from five related patents that all arose 

from the same original patent application. Specifically, the Complaint alleges infringement of 

claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,053 (“the ’053 patent”), claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent 

No. 8,891,504 (“the ’504 patent”), claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,246,702 (“the ’702 patent”), claim 

30 of U.S. Patent No. 6,215,797 (“the ’797 patent”), and claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,661,804 

(“the ’804 patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Claims” of the “Asserted Patents”).2

 The Asserted 

Patents “generally pertain to communications networks and other technology used in the provision 

of wireless services, Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) phone systems, high speed networking, 

 

2

 While Far North did not attach the Asserted Patents to its Complaint, the Court can rely on the Asserted 

Patents for the purposes of this motion because they are integral to Far North’s infringement claims, are 

referenced throughout the Complaint, and are copies of self-authenticating documents under Fed. R. Evid. 

902. See Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 570 F. App’x 927, 932 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In evaluating a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion, a court may rely on documents outside the pleadings if they are integral to the plaintiff's 

claims and their authenticity is not disputed.”); Scanlan v. Tex. A&M. Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 

2003) (approving consideration of “documents that are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central 

to the plaintiff's claim” for a motion to dismiss). 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 20
3 

and other advanced communication services.” (Complaint at ¶ 6.) Four of the Asserted Patents—

the ’504, ’702, ’797, and ’804 patents—expired on August 19, 2018. The fifth Asserted Patent—

the ’053 patent—was granted 987 days of patent term adjustment and will expire by May 2, 2021. 

All asserted claims require a “time frame” (or “frame of time”) that includes an “assigned” 

time phase and a “free-access phase.” (See, e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 13, 27, 38, 47, 59.) For example, 

claim 1 of the ’053 patent recites “a transmission unit configured to transmit data from a real time 

device via a network according to a time frame . . . the time frame repeating periodically and 

including a plurality of assigned time phases and a free access phase.” (Exhibit 1 (’053 patent), 

Claim 1 (emphasis added).) An example of this is illustrated in Figure 4 of the Asserted Patents, 

which shows a frame “F” containing four assigned time phases (“Owned Phases” 1–4, labeled 201, 

202, 203, and 204) and one free access phase (“Un-owned (Free Access) Phase,” corresponding to 

“Phase 5” and labeled 205). (See Exhibit 1 (’053 patent) at Figure 4 (reproduced below with color 

added).) 

Beyond the “time frame” requirement found in all seven Asserted Claims, the claims split 

roughly into two categories. 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 20
4 

The first category includes four of the Asserted Claims—claims 1 and 14 of the ’053 patent 

and claims 1 and 6 of the ’504 patent—that require the claimed “device adapter” to “defer 

transmission” to another device. For example, claim 1 of the ’504 patent recites a “device adapter” 

that is configured to “defer transmission of data . . . to allow the another device to transmit data.” 

(Exhibit 2 (’504 patent), Claim 1 (emphasis added).) An example of this is illustrated in Figure 

9A of the Asserted Patents, which shows a phase containing two portions of time where the device 

adapter (“DA”) defers to another device (i.e., the periods numbered 630 and 650, and labeled 

“Owner DA defers to Native-NRTD packet[s]” from the “Native-NRTD device”). (See Exhibit 2 

(’504 patent) at Figure 9A (reproduced below with color added).) 

The second category includes the remaining three asserted claims—claim 27 of the ’702 

patent, claim 30 of the ’797 patent, and claim 22 of the ’804 patent—that require “each” device 

adapter be “uniquely assigned” to a time phase of the frame. For example, claim 27 of the ’702 

patent requires “a frame of time having a plurality of time phases, each of device adapters being 

uniquely assigned to one of said plurality of time phases.” (Exhibit 3 (’702 patent), Claim 27 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 20
5 

(emphasis added).) An example of this is illustrated in Figure 4 of the Asserted Patents, supra, 

which shows device adapters uniquely assigned to “Owned Phases” 1–4 (e.g., “Only DA 1 can 

transmit” in Phase 1, “Only DA 2 can transmit” in Phase 2, etc.). (See id. at Figure 4 (reproduced 

above with color added).) 

B. The Infringement Allegations 

The Complaint’s infringement allegations are premised on an industry-standard 

communications protocol—the IEEE 802.1Q standard promulgated by the Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). (See, e.g., Complaint at ¶ 13.) The Complaint first alleges that 

Analog’s Fido5000 REM switch products and its EVAL-RapID-TSNEK TSN Evaluation Kit (the 

“Accused Products”) can be configured to use the IEEE 802.1Q standard and thereafter presents 

infringement allegations premised solely on passages describing that IEEE standard. (See 

Complaint at ¶¶ 11, 13–18, 24, 26–30, 35, 37–40, 45, 47–52, 57, 59–62.) The Complaint’s 

infringement allegations are thus premised upon the notion that the Asserted Patents enable every 

implementation of the cited IEEE standard to allegedly support the inference that any product that 

supports the standard necessarily infringes. 

The Complaint alleges that Analog directly infringes the asserted method claims based on 

a contention of “using the accused products” without elaboration regarding the circumstances. 

(See Complaint at ¶¶ 15, 26, 37, 49, 59.) The Complaint alleges willful blindness premised on 

Analog’s supposed “policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others,” and on that basis 

alleges indirect and willful infringement. (Complaint at ¶¶ 86–91.) 

III. Legal Standard 

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. 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 20
6 

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plausibility 

standard is not met unless the “plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Courts “are not 

bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. Thus, “[t]hreadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 

suffice.” Id. The plausibility requirement “serves the practical purpose of preventing a plaintiff 

with ‘a largely groundless claim’ ‘from tak[ing] up the time of a number of other people, with the 

right to do so representing an in terrorem increment of the settlement value.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 546 (quoting Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347 (2005).) 

IV. Argument 

A. The Complaint Allegation for the Claimed “Time Frame” is SelfContradictory and Thus Facially Implausible 

All Asserted Claims require a “time frame” (or “frame of time”) with two components: 

(1) one or more “assigned” time phases, and (2) a “free-access phase.” (See, e.g., Complaint at 

¶¶ 13, 27, 38, 47, 59.) For example, claim 1 of the ’053 patent calls for “a transmission unit 

configured to transmit data from a real time device via a network according to a time frame . . . 

the time frame repeating periodically and including a plurality of assigned time phases and a free 

access phase.” (Exhibit 1 (’053 patent), Claim 1 (emphasis added).) 

The Complaint’s allegations regarding the assigned and free access phases of the “time 

frame” are based on the “transmission gates” functionality described in the IEEE 802.1Q 

communications standard. The Complaint generally alleges that: 

A transmission gate can be in a closed state or open state. The 

functionality of assigned time phases is achieved using open gates

transmitting data packets during transmission time. The 

functionality of a free access phase is achieved when the gates are 

opened for transmission during any time. 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 10 of 20
7 

(Complaint at ¶ 13 (emphasis added).) 

For the “assigned time phases” of the “time frame”—which is allegedly “achieved using 

open gates transmitting data packets during transmission time”—the Complaint relies on 

implementation of an optional scheduling feature of the IEEE standard. Specifically, the 

Complaint cites Section 8.6.8.4 of the standard, which is titled “Enhancements for scheduled 

traffic,” that describes a feature whereby a device “may support enhancements that allow 

transmission from each queue to be scheduled relative to a known timescale” by having 

transmission gates that are either in an “Open” state when “selected for transmission” or in a 

“Closed” state when “not selected for transmission.” (Complaint at page 15 (quoting IEEE 

802.1Qbv-2015) (reproduced below) (emphasis added).) 

Alleged Support for “Assigned Time Phases” 

(Complaint at 15 (underlining in original, highlighting added)) 

However, for the “free access phase” of the “time frame”—which is allegedly “achieved 

when the gates are opened for transmission during any time”—the Complaint relies on not

implementing the optional scheduling feature of the IEEE standard. Specifically, the Complaint 

cites a portion of the standard that states that, “[i]n an implementation that does not support 

enhancements for scheduled traffic, all gates are assumed to be permanently in the open state,” 

also alleges that “[i]f the gates are in permanent open state, the data packets are transmitted from 

the gates during any time,” and concludes with the allegation quoted above that “[t]he functionality 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 11 of 20
8 

of a free access phase is achieved when the gates are opened for transmission during any time.” 

(Complaint at page 16 (quoting IEEE 802.1Qbv-2015, reproduced below), ¶ 13, and ¶ 28 

(emphasis added).) 

Alleged Support for “Free Access Phase” 

(Complaint at 16 (underlining in original, highlighting added)) 

The Complaint thus combines two mutually-exclusive scenarios: (1) an implementation

that supports the optional enhancements for scheduled traffic feature, where transmission gates 

are opened only during transmission time, as the alleged “assigned” time phase of the “time 

frame,” and are otherwise closed, and (2) an implementation that does not support the optional

enhancements for scheduled traffic feature, where transmission gates are kept permanently open, 

as the alleged “free access” time phase of the “time frame.” These two scenarios are not asserted 

as alternative theories for different claims, but are inappropriately cobbled together in a single 

allegation to satisfy the “time frame” limitation recited in all Asserted Claims. See National 

Western Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 175 F.Supp.2d 489, 492 

(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“clashing factual assertions, stated in the context of the same claim rather than 

as conceptually distinct alternative theories of liability, may be deemed judicial admissions”). 

The Complaint’s reliance on the combination of these mutually-exclusive scenarios is selfcontradictory and therefore cannot amount to a plausible theory of infringement. See Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (“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’”) (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 570); see also Rosas v. Bexar Cty., No. 5:14-cv-1082, 2015 WL 1955406, at *5 (W.D. Tex. 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 12 of 20
9 

Apr. 29, 2015) (“The Court need not accept as true an allegation contradicted by other specific 

factual allegations within Plaintiff's own Amended Complaint.”) (quoting with approval Bogie v. 

Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 609 (7th Cir. 2013) (“In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6), district courts are free to consider any facts set forth in the complaint that undermine the 

plaintiff’s claim.”)); Garzes v. S. San Antonio ISD, No. SA-02-CA-1131-FB, 2003 WL 27384528, 

at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 27, 2003) (“Where an document/exhibit attached to a motion or incorporated 

in the complaint contradicts an assertion made in the complaint and eliminates any possible claim 

for relief, dismissal is appropriate.”); Phoneternet, LLC v. LexisNexis Risk Sols., Inc., No. 3:18-

CV-1719-L, 2019 WL 4748271, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019); Associated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. 

Power Co., 505 F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir. 1974) (holding that facts need not be admitted as true when 

a document treated as a part of the complaint contradicts allegations within the complaint); 

National Western Life Ins. Co., 175 F.Supp.2d at 492.3

B. The Complaint Fails to Plead Any Factual Matter for the Claim 

Requirement to “Defer Transmission” to Another Device 

Four of the asserted claims require the claimed “device adapter” to “defer transmission” to 

another device. Specifically, asserted claims 1 and 6 of the ’504 patent both explicitly require the 

device adapter to “defer transmission of data . . . to allow the another device to transmit data” 

(Exhibit 2 (’504 patent), Claims 1 and 6), while asserted claims 1 and 14 of the ’053 patent first 

specify that the device adapter is configured to transmit data from a “real time device” and then 

 

3

 Not only do the self-contradictory allegations result in a facially implausible claim, the optional nature of the 

scheduling feature means that the Complaint’s citations solely to the IEEE standard are by definition insufficient 

factual support for the infringement allegations. See Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (“standards compliance alone would not establish that the accused infringer chooses to implement the optional 

section . . . In these cases, the patent owner must compare the claims to the accused products or, if appropriate, prove 

that the accused products implement any relevant optional sections of the standard”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 13 of 20
10 

state that it must “defer transmission of data . . . to allow a non-real time device to transmit data,” 

i.e., another device that is not the real time device. (See Exhibit 1 (’053 patent), Claims 1 and 14.) 

The Complaint fails to allege how the accused products supposedly meet the requirement 

to “defer transmission” to another device. In fact, when Analog identified this defect during email 

correspondence preceding this motion, Far North’s counsel responded by erroneously asserting 

that “the term ‘another device’ is not found in the claims.” (Exhibit 6 (Email Correspondence) at 

3.) By this response, Far North appears to concede that that the Accused Products do not in fact 

defer transmission to another device.4

 In any event, because the Complaint does not include any 

description of how the Accused Products meet the claim requirement to “defer transmission” to 

another device, it fails to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” See De La Vega v. Microsoft 

Corp., No. W-19-cv-00612-ADA, Dkt. No. 29 (attached as Exhibit 7), slip op. at 13 (W.D. Tex. 

Feb. 7, 2020) (“Because Plaintiff does not include even a short written description of how the 

accused instrumentalities meet the ‘coupling’ limitation, his complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted.”). 

C. The Complaint Fails to Plead Any Factual Matter for the “Uniquely 

Assigned” Claim Requirement 

Three of the asserted claims require that “each” device adapter be “uniquely assigned” to 

a time phase of the time frame. Specifically, claim 27 of the ’702 patent, claim 30 of the ’797 

patent, and claim 22 of the ’804 patent require, with minor differences in wording, “each [of / of 

said] device adapter[s] [capable of] being uniquely assigned to [at least] one of said plurality of 

 

4

 In addition, Far North’s lack of familiarity with the asserted claims appears to be compelling evidence 

that it failed to comply with Rule 11’s requirement of an adequate pre-filing investigation before filing the 

Complaint. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990). 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 14 of 20
11 

time phases.” (See Exhibit 3 (’702 patent), Claim 27; Exhibit 4 (’797 patent), Claim 30; Exhibit 

5 (’804 patent), Claim 22.) 

The Complaint fails to allege how the “uniquely assigned” claim requirement is met and 

instead only contains a boilerplate recital of the claim limitation without any elaboration that 

describes how the Accused Products could meet this limitation.5

 In fact, the only factual matter in 

the Complaint arguably pertinent to the “uniquely assigned” claim requirement shows that this 

limitation is not met by the IEEE standard. Specifically, the Complaint cites a figure from the 

standard showing a “Gate control list” where multiple transmission gates are assigned (e.g., “open” 

or “o”) for every time slot (“T00,” “T01,” etc.) and thus no transmission gate is “uniquely 

assigned” to any time phase. (Complaint at page 16 (quoting IEEE 802.1Qbv-2015, reproduced 

below with annotations).) 

 

5

 During email correspondence preceding this motion, Far North’s counsel effectively admitted that the 

Complaint contains only bare allegations unsupported by factual matter when they responded that “the 

allegation in the complaint is that Analog’s devices have a ‘device adapter to transmit packets during time 

phase uniquely assigned to the specified device adapter and during said free-access phase.’ If Analog has 

evidence that their devices do not have this functionality, please let us know.” (Exhibit 6 (Email 

Correspondence) at 3.) In so doing, Far North effectively conceded that the Complaint contains only the 

bare allegation that the Accused Products meet the claim limitation, and attempted to improperly shift the 

burden to Analog to show that they do not. 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 15 of 20
12 

Passage from IEEE 802.1Qbv-2015 Standard (Complaint at 16 (annotation added)) 

Because the Complaint is entirely devoid of any factual matter supporting the allegation 

that any device adapters, much less “each” such device adapter as required, are “uniquely 

assigned” to a time phase of the time frame, and because the Complaint itself shows that this is in 

fact not the case, Far North failed to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to 

plausible” and the Complaint therefore must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also De 

La Vega, (Exhibit 7), slip op. at 13. 

D. The Complaint Fails to Plead any Factual Matter for the Allegation 

Regarding Direct Infringement of the Asserted Method Claims 

Five of the seven asserted claims are method claims,6

 which could only be infringed by 

performance of the claimed methods. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 

1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Method claims are only infringed when the claimed process is performed, 

 

6

 Specifically, the asserted method claims are claim 14 of the ’053 patent, claim 27 of the ’702 patent, claim 

30 of the ’797 patent, claim 6 of the ’504 patent, and claim 22 of the ’804 patent. 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 16 of 20
13 

not by the sale of an apparatus that is capable of infringing use.”); see also Ericsson, Inc. v. DLink Systems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1219, 1221–1222 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Complaint includes 

only a repeated, boilerplate allegation that Analog infringed the method claims “by using the 

accused products,” but does not provide any factual predicate regarding how, when, or where that 

alleged use by Analog occurred. (See Complaint at ¶¶ 15, 26, 37, 49, 59.) The Complaint fails to 

allege, even in formulaic fashion, that Analog alone performed all of the method steps, that Analog 

did so entirely within the United States, or that Analog did so prior to the expiration of the four 

expired patents. See Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, 572 U.S. 915 (2014) (direct 

infringement of a method claim requires that performance of all the claimed steps be attributable 

to a single person); NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(infringement of a method claim requires that all steps be performed within the United States); Joy 

Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 776–777 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (infringement of a method 

claim requires performance of steps prior to patent expiration). Accordingly, the Complaint’s 

allegation of direct infringement of the five asserted method claims is just a “[t]hreadbare recital[] 

of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” that “do[es] not 

suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

E. The Complaint Fails to Plead any Factual Matter for the Allegation 

Regarding Indirect Infringement of the Expired Asserted Patents 

The Complaint alleges indirect infringement of all five Asserted Patents. (Complaint at 

¶ 65.) However, indirect infringement either under an inducement theory or by contributory 

infringement requires knowledge of the patents and of the alleged infringement. See Global-Tech 

Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 764–765 (2011). The Complaint alleges that Analog 

acquired knowledge of the ’053 patent “when it was notified of the filing of this [Complaint].” 

(See Complaint at ¶ 19.) The Complaint does not contain similar allegations for the remaining 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 17 of 20
14 

four patents, because they expired prior to the Complaint being filed. As to those expired patents, 

the Complaint only contains a conclusory allegation that Analog was willfully blind. (See

Complaint at ¶¶ 86–88.) However, this allegation of willful blindness is based solely on the 

assertion that “Analog has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others.” (Id. at 

¶ 86.)7

 Even if such a baseless assertion were true, it would still be insufficient to show willful 

blindness. See VLSI Tech., LLC v. Intel Corp., Nos. 6:19-cv-0254-ADA, -0255-ADA, -0256-

ADA, Dkt. No. 52 (attached as Exhibit 8), slip op. at 1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2019) (finding a 

company’s “policy that forbids its employees from reading patents held by outside companies or 

individuals” to be “insufficient to meet the test of willful blindness”). Accordingly, the 

Complaint’s allegation of indirect infringement of the four expired patents is just a “[t]hreadbare 

recital[] of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” that 

“do[es] not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

F. The Complaint Fails to Plead any Factual Matter for the Allegation 

Regarding Willful Infringement 

The Complaint contains a perfunctory allegation that Analog’s alleged infringement “is, 

has been, and/or continues to be willful.” (Complaint at ¶ 91.) The Complaint does not elaborate 

on the willfulness allegation, but the apparent reliance on the earlier willful blindness assertion is 

also insufficient for willful infringement. See VLSI Tech., (Exhibit 8) slip op. at 2 (concluding that 

the holding that a company’s policy forbidding its employees from reading patents held by outside 

companies or individuals is insufficient for willful blindness also applies for willful infringement). 

 

7

 The Complaint references a law review article that does not mention Analog and is from a 2007 

symposium titled “What Ifs and Other Alternative Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw Stories.” (Complaint 

at ¶ 86.) 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 18 of 20
15 

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Analog respectfully requests that the Complaint be dismissed 

with prejudice. Specifically, Far North’s sole allegation regarding the “time frame” requirement 

found in all Asserted Claims is self-contradictory, so any corrective change in Far North’s 

infringement allegations would have to be so substantial that it would effectively concede that Far 

North failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 when it filed the original Complaint. 

Date: June 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Michael S. Nadel 

Michael S. Nadel 

DC Bar No. 470144 

Alexander P. Ott 

DC Bar No. 1003796 (pro hac vice pending) 

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 

500 North Capitol Street, NW 

Washington DC 20001 

(202) 756-8000 

Jiaxiao Zhang 

CA Bar No. 317927 (pro hac vice pending) 

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 

18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 250 

Irvine, CA 92612-2565 

(949) 851-0633 

Attorneys for Analog Devices Inc.

 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 19 of 20
16 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 8, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of 

record. 

/s/ Michael S. Nadel 

Case 6:20-cv-00219-ADA Document 17 Filed 06/08/20 Page 20 of 20