WEST/302550518

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§

v. § 

§

Civil No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

§ 

§ 

§

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Defendants. §

SAMSUNG’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL 

AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OF 

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 6
-1- 

WEST/302550518

Pursuant to the Court’s April 19, 2023, Order, Defendants (collectively “Samsung”) 

hereby (1) respond to Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 72) (“Notice”) concerning Neonode’s willful infringement 

claim regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 (“’879 patent”) and (2) respectfully submit additional 

supplemental authority supporting Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) (“Motion”). 

First, Plaintiff asserts the complaint in the VoIP-Pal.com case recited “comparable 

allegations” that were found by the Court to adequately allege willful infringement. Notice at 2. 

However, the allegations in VoIP-Pal.com are distinguishable from those in the present case for 

at least the following reasons: 

 In VoIP-Pal.com, the plaintiff sent “notice letters that identif[ied] the [first asserted 

patent] and a patent application that ultimately led to [the second asserted patent].” 

VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00665-ADA, 2022 WL 1394550, at 

*1-*3 (W.D. Tex. May 3, 2022). Here, Plaintiff sent no such notice letters to Samsung 

and Plaintiff cites no evidence that Samsung otherwise had actual knowledge of the ’879 

patent, much less actual knowledge that Samsung allegedly infringed the patent. See 

Compl. at ¶¶ 17, 20-23, 25-28; Motion at 2-4. 

 In VoIP-Pal.com, the plaintiff alleged “the parties’ ongoing litigation” regarding a 

different patent was evidence the defendants were monitoring the plaintiff’s patent 

portfolio. VoIP-Pal.com, 2022 WL 1394550 at *1. Here, there was no prior litigation 

between Plaintiff and Samsung. 

 In VoIP-Pal.com, plaintiff alleged that “based on this letter and as a result of ongoing 

patent litigation between the parties, the Defendants allegedly monitored Plaintiff’s 

patent portfolio.” Id. Neonode makes no such allegation in its Complaint because there 

were no such prior notice letters or previous patent litigation between the parties. See 

Compl. at ¶¶ 17, 20-23, 25-28; Motion at 2-4. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s reliance on VoIP-Pal.com is misplaced. 

Second, while Plaintiff cites the Court’s BillJCo decision, Plaintiff fails to note that the 

Court dismissed the plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim because the complaint in that case, as is 

the case here, failed to allege facts showing the defendant had actual pre-suit knowledge of the 

alleged infringement (even though the defendant in that case had actual knowledge, through a 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 6
-2- 

WEST/302550518

notice letter, of all but one of the asserted patents). BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 

769, 775-777 (W.D. Tex. 2022). 

Third, the Notice fails to address many recent decisions by this Court that support 

granting Samsung’s Motion on the ground that the facts alleged by Plaintiff cannot constitute 

pre-suit knowledge of the ’879 patent or knowledge of its alleged infringement. See RFCyber 

Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00916-ADA, at 3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2022) (knowledge of 

applications later issuing as asserted patents insufficient to plead pre-suit knowledge for pre-suit 

willful infringement); Flypsi, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:22-CV-0031-ADA, 2022 WL 3593053, 

at *5 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) (“knowledge of patent applications generally without more is 

insufficient to satisfy the knowledge requirement” to plead pre-suit willful infringement claims); 

Atlas Glob. Techs., LLC v. Sercomm Corp., No. 6-21-CV-00818-ADA, 2022 WL 16557650, at 

*5 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2022) (in granting motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement claim, 

stating that “[m]ultiple district courts, post-Halo, have held that general knowledge of a patent 

portfolio without more is insufficient even to plausibly allege knowledge of a particular asserted 

patent”) (quoting Kirsch Rsch. & Dev., LLC v. Tarco Specialty Prod., Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00318-

ADA, 2021 WL 4555802, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021)). 

This Court also has emphasized that knowledge of infringement is a “distinct element” 

from knowledge of the asserted patent, “and without more factual allegations supporting 

knowledge of infringement, the pleading standard is not met.” Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. 

Meraki Integrated Cir. (Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd., No. 6:20-CV-008876-ADA, 2021 WL 3931910, 

at *5 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2021). As detailed in Samsung’s Motion, Neonode failed to 

adequately plead knowledge of infringement. Motion at 2-3; Dkt. 29 (Motion Reply Brief) at 2. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/23 Page 3 of 6
-3- 

WEST/302550518

Dated: April 26, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

By: /s/ John M. Guaragna

John M. Guaragna 

Texas Bar No 24043308 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000 

Austin, TX 78701-4653 

Tel: 512.457.7125 

Fax: 512.457.7001 

john.guaragna@dlapiper.com 

Mark K. Fowler (Pro hac vice) 

Bar No. 124235 

mark.fowler@dlapiper.com 

Erik Fuehrer (Pro hac vice) 

Bar No. 252578 

Erik.fuehrer@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

2000 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214 

Tel: 650.833.2000 

Fax: 650.833.2001 

Tiffany Miller (Pro hac vice) 

Tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

401 B St., Ste. 1700 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Tel: 619.699.2700 

Fax: 619.699.2701 

Zachary Loney (Pro hac vice) 

DLA Piper LLP (US) 

303 Colorado St., Suite 3000 

Austin, TX 78701 

Tel: 512.457.7000 

Zachary.loney@us.dlapiper.com 

Benjamin Mueller (Pro hac vice) 

Benjamin.mueller@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 

Chicago, IL 60606-0089

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/23 Page 4 of 6
-4- 

WEST/302550518

Tel: 312.368.4000 

Fax: 312.236.7516 

ATTORNEYS FOR SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. and SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/23 Page 5 of 6
-5- 

WEST/302550518

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served on April 26, 2023 with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail 

on this same date. 

/s/ John M. Guaragna 

John M. Guaragna 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/23 Page 6 of 6