IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

THETA IP, LLC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., 

LTD., AND SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION: WA:20-CV-00160-ADA

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Came on for consideration this date is Plaintiff Theta IP’s (“Theta”) Motion to Dismiss 

Defendant Samsung’s inequitable conduct counterclaim and affirmative defense. ECF No. 70. 

Samsung and Theta filed respective responsive briefings. ECF No. 74; ECF No. 77. After careful 

consideration of the above briefings, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. 

I. Background

In March of 2016, Theta submitted the patent application for the ‘926 Patent. ECF 74, p. 

2. On November 21, 2019, Theta submitted a Request for Certificate of Correction Due to 

Applicant’s Mistake (the “Request”) under 37 CFR § 1.323. Id. at p. 2. The Request sought to 

change a word in element (iv) of Claim 1 from “increase” to “decrease.” Id. Under 35 U.S.C. § 

255, correction requests must fall into one of three categories: clerical, typographical, or minor. 

Here, Theta characterized the change as “minor” and that “the mistakes [sic] occurred in good faith 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 84 Filed 06/07/21 Page 1 of 5
and that the corrections [sic] do not involve changes that would constitute new matter or require 

reexamination....” Id. at p. 3. On December 31, 2019, the USPTO issued the Certificate of

Correction. Id. 

Defendant-Samsung filed their Amended Answer and Counterclaim on April 2, 2021. ECF 

No. 65. That pleading added an inequitable conduct counterclaim (¶¶ 241-43) and an inequitable 

conduct affirmative defense (¶¶ 168-178). Id. Samsung’s pleadings contain allegations which 

include an assertion stating, “On information and belief, Theta IP knew that changing a word to 

its opposite was not a minor correction.” Id. at ¶¶ 175-176. As to Theta’s alleged deceitful intent,

Samsung only alleges “[o]n information and belief, Theta IP knew that the correction was not 

correctable under 35 U.S.C. § 255 and misrepresented the nature of the correction with a specific 

intent to deceive the USPTO into issuing the improper certification of correction.” Id. at ¶177.

II. Legal Standard

“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a ‘short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 677–78 (2009). The purpose of pleadings is to “give the defendant fair notice of what 

the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

555 (2007). “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, 556 U.S. at 678 

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Inequitable conduct allegations must satisfy a heightened 

pleading requirement such that each element “must be pled with particularity” under Rule 9(b). 

Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 

1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 84 Filed 06/07/21 Page 2 of 5
A pleading of inequitable conduct “must identify the specific who, what, when, where, and 

how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the PTO.” Exergen Corp. v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The intent element must be pled with 

“sufficient allegations of underlying facts from which a court may reasonably infer that a specific 

individual (1) knew of . . . the falsity of the material misrepresentation, and (2) . . . misrepresented 

this information with a specific intent to deceive the PTO.” Id. at 1328–29. Further, the elements

of knowledge and of deceitful intent must be “reasonable and drawn from a pleading’s allegations 

of underlying fact.” Id. at n. 5.

III. Discussion

Samsung hasfailed to allege information, taken as true, to which this Court can “reasonably 

infer” that Theta “knew of . . . the falsity of the material misrepresentation” and “misrepresented 

this information with a specific intent to deceive the PTO.” See Id. at 1328–29. Samsung’s 

principal argument making such a reasonable inference here is that the Request made to the 

USPTO “necessarily broadened the scope of the original claim” and that “[t]here is no room for 

reasonable lawyers to argue” that it was not broadening. ECF No. 74, p. 6. Therefore, Samsung 

argues, a reasonable inference can be drawn as to Theta’s intent to deceive the USPTO. Id.

Samsung also argues that Theta’s possible motivation for using the “minor correction” 

process, rather than the more strenuous and time-consuming broadening reissue process, “would 

have taken far too long to permit assertion of the patent in this litigation”—leaving Theta with a 

narrow infringement window. Id. at p. 7. Samsung asks the Court to infer that Theta knew they

made a material misrepresentation because the “minor” correction was broadening (and no 

reasonable person could argue otherwise), and because of this, the Request had to be made with 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 84 Filed 06/07/21 Page 3 of 5
an intent to deceive. Such broad inferences cannot be made reasonably based on the allegations in 

Samsung’s Complaint. See ECF No. 65, ¶¶ 168-178.

Samsung cites Weatherford, where that Court also considered and denied a motion to 

dismiss an inequitable conduct claim. Weatherford Int’l, Inc. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc.,

No. 2:09- CV-261-CE, 2011 WL 902243 *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2011). There, the correction 

changed the word “inner” to “outer.” Id. However, in Weatherford, it was “undisputed” that the 

corrected claim curing a “typographical” error was broadening. Id. at *2. Therefore, the 

Weatherford Court’s decision was based on a different analysis of the claim correction, and the 

inference of deceitful intent was reasonable where the correction was undisputedly broadening.

Here, the correction from “increase” to “decrease” was characterized as a “minor” change rather 

than a typographical one. ECF No. 70. Further, the correction here is not undisputedly broadening 

within the context of the patent—the USPTO disagreed with Samsung

The inference that Samsung asks the Court to make is not reasonable. Such an inference 

would require the Court to assume the arguments Theta made in its Request were knowingly 

misrepresented, and the USPTO was incorrect by finding that the correction did not alter the scope 

of the Patent. The presumption of patent validity, and the burden of showing clear and convincing 

evidence to defeat it, extends to Certificates of Correction. See, e.g., Superior Fireplace Co. v. 

Majestic Prods. Co., 270 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Samsung’s main contention for the 

USPTO’s alleged mistake is simply that “increase” was changed to its opposite— “decrease.” ECF

No. 74, ¶ While facts alleged in a pleading should are taken as true, “we ‘are not bound to accept 

as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (citation omitted). Further, Samsung’s only factual allegations to advance an “intent to 

deceive” inference are based “upon information and belief.” ECF No. 65, ¶¶ 175-177. Samsung’s 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 84 Filed 06/07/21 Page 4 of 5
“belief” stems from their legal conclusion that the correction was broadening. The Court cannot 

find a reasonable inference based on that information. 

The bare allegations made in Samsung’s complaint must be dismissed because a 

heightened pleading standard applied to inequitable conduct claims. Since Samsung relies on the 

same bare “upon information and belief” allegations for its inequitable conduct affirmative 

defense, that claim also fails the heightened pleading standard. The circumstances alleged by 

Samsung “do not plausibly suggest any deliberate decision to withhold a known material reference 

or to make a knowingly false misrepresentation—a necessary predicate for inferring deceptive 

intent.” Exergen, 575 F.3d at 1331 (quotations omitted). 

It is therefore ORDERED that the Theta’s Motion Dismiss is GRANTED and Samsung’s 

equitable conduct counterclaim and affirmative defense are DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

SIGNED this 7th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 84 Filed 06/07/21 Page 5 of 5