IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

GREENTHREAD, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00212-JRG

(LEAD CASE)

GREENTHREAD, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00157-JRG

GREENTHREAD, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

OSRAM GMBH, AMS-OSRAM AG, AMS 

SENSORS USA INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00179-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc.’s (“OmniVision”) Rule 

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (the “Motion”). (Dkt. 

No. 34.) In the Motion, OmniVision moves to dismiss Greenthread LLC’s (“Greenthread”) 

Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) on the grounds that Greenthread’s allegations of direct and induced 

Case 2:23-cv-00212-JRG Document 90 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 3086
2

infringement fail to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having 

considered the Motion, the subsequent briefing, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court is of 

the opinion that the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2023, Greenthread filed its Complaint against OmniVision for infringement 

of six patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,421,195 (“the ’195 Patent”), 9,190,502 (“the ’502 Patent”), 

10,510,842 (“the ’842 Patent”), 10,734,481 (“the ’481 Patent”), 11,121,222 (“the ’222 Patent”), 

and 11,316,014 (“the ’014 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The 

Asserted Patents all share a specification and generally relate to improved semiconductor devices. 

(Id.); (Dkt. No. 34 at 3.) 

Exhibit 8 of the Complaint includes a claim chart “demonstrat[ing] how exemplary 

OmniVision Accused Products meet the claim limitations of Greenthread Patents.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 

9.) The claim chart compares OmniVision’s OV24A1Q product to the asserted claims of the ’842 

Patent on an element-by-element basis. (Dkt. No. 1-8 at 1-2.) As evidence for infringement, 

Greenthread primarily cites a report detailing the reverse engineering of OmniVision’s OV24A1Q 

product (the “Tech Insights Report”). (Id.); (Dkt. No. 37 at 4.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A court 

can dismiss a complaint that fails to meet this standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive 

dismissal at the pleading stage, a complaint must state enough facts such that the claim to relief is 

plausible on its face. Thompson v. City of Waco, 764 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff 

pleads enough facts to allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

Case 2:23-cv-00212-JRG Document 90 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 3087
3

for the misconduct alleged. Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court 

accepts well-pleaded facts as true, and views all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, 

but is not required to accept the plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Id.

In the Fifth Circuit, motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are viewed with disfavor and 

are rarely granted. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009); Lowrey v. 

Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). “The court may consider ‘the complaint, 

any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss 

that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.’” Script Sec. Sols. L.L.C. v. 

Amazon.com, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 928, 935 (E.D. Tex. 2016) (quoting Lone Star Fund V (U.S.) 

L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)).

In the context of patent infringement, a complaint must place the alleged infringer on notice 

of what activity is being accused of infringement. Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 

1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, the plaintiff is not required to prove its case at the pleading 

stage. Id. Assessing the sufficiency of pleadings is a context specific task; simpler technologies 

may require less detailed pleadings, while more complex technologies may demand more. Disk 

Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

III. DISCUSSION

OmniVision moves to dismiss Greenthread’s claims for both direct and indirect 

infringement. The Court addresses each in turn.

A. Direct Infringement

OmniVision argues that Greenthread’s direct infringement claims should be dismissed 

because Greenthread fails to provide any factual allegations supporting its claims that 

OmniVision’s products practice (1) the “second active region” limitation, (2) the “surface layer” 

limitation, and (3) the “substrate” limitation of the asserted claims. (Dkt. No. 34 at 12-15.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00212-JRG Document 90 Filed 12/14/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3088
4

Specifically, OmniVision argues that Greenthread fails to identify in Exhibit 8 where these

limitations are present in OmniVision’s products. (Id. at 12-13.) OmniVision alleges that 

Greenthread produced reports similar to the Tech Insights Report in prior litigations, but in those 

litigations the reports included figures with arrows and annotations specifically identifying where 

the claim limitations were present in the accused products. (Id. at 14-15.) While OmniVision 

concedes that such annotations are not required to state a claim for infringement, it argues that the 

lack of annotations in Exhibit 8 is “telling,” and it indicates that the claim limitations are not

present in OmniVision’s products. (Id.) OmniVision argues that since Greenthread has not 

specifically identified where the limitations are present in its products, Greenthread cannot sustain 

its claim for direct infringement. 

OmniVision also argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because the Tech Insights 

Report conclusively proves that the limitations are not found in the accused products. (Id. at 16.) 

For example, the asserted claims require a “graded concentration of dopants” on a “substrate.” 

(See e.g., Dkt. No. 1-1.) OmniVision argues that the Tech Insights Report does not identify any 

“substrate” in the same portion of the chips where the report identifies “graded dopant 

concentration.” (Id. at 1, 8, 15.) Further, OmniVision argues that the Tech Insights Report cannot 

show a “second active region” because the report only shows a single active region based on 

arguments made to overcome prior art in the prosecution history. (Id.) 

Greenthread argues that this Motion necessarily fails because it “proceeds from the false 

premise that a complaint for patent infringement must adopt a claim-by-claim, element-by-element 

pleading format.” (Dkt. No. 37 at 1.) Greenthread argues that such granular detail is not required, 

and arguments to the contrary have been repeatedly rejected by this Court. (Id.) (citing Optimum 

Imaging Techs. LLC v. Canon Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00246-JRG, 2020 WL 10357165 (E.D. Tex. May 

Case 2:23-cv-00212-JRG Document 90 Filed 12/14/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 3089
5

1, 2020)). Greenthread contends that it has pled sufficient facts to state a claim by identifying the 

accused products and “explain[ing] how at least a representative product infringes.” (Id.) (quoting 

Optimum Imaging, 2020 WL 10357165, at *3). 

Greenthread also disagrees that the Complaint conclusively proves that the claim 

limitations are absent from the accused products. For example, Greenthread argues that the plain 

and ordinary meaning of “substrate” is “underlying layer,” and the images in the Tech Insights 

Report show an underlying layer. (Dkt. No. 37 at 11.) Greenthread further argues that determining 

whether the images show features such as a “second active region” requires claim construction, 

precluding dismissal at this stage. (Id.) 

The Court finds that Greenthread has pled sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for 

direct infringement. Greenthread is not required to prove its case at the pleading stage. Lifetime 

Indus., 869 F.3d at 1379. Greenthread’s Complaint must plead sufficient facts to put OmniVision 

on notice of what activity is being accused of infringement. (Id.) Requiring Greenthread to provide 

element-by-element infringement contentions before the parties have conducted discovery or fully 

fleshed out their theories would be too onerous a burden. See Optimum Imaging, 2020 WL 

10357165, at *3. The fact that Greenthread provided annotations in a claim chart in other cases is 

irrelevant. It is sufficient in this case that Greenthread identified the accused products and 

“explain[ed] how at least a representative product infringes,” with enough detail to put OmniVision 

on notice of what is being accused of infringement. See id.; Lifetime Indus., 869 F.3d at 1379.

The Court disagrees that the Complaint conclusively proves the absence of the claim 

limitations from the accused products. The Court cannot determine whether a “substrate” or 

“second active region” are absent from OmniVision’s products without first defining the terms 

“substrate” and “second active region.” The Court declines to conduct claim construction at the 

Case 2:23-cv-00212-JRG Document 90 Filed 12/14/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 3090
6

pleading stage. Claim construction will come later in the development of this case and as set out 

in the docket control order. 

At this stage, Greenthread is merely required to put OmniVision on notice of the accused 

activity. It has done so. Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint contains sufficient factual 

allegations to state a claim for direct infringement. 

B. Indirect Infringement 

OmniVision argues that the factual allegations in the Complaint cannot plausibly support 

a cause of action of indirect infringement by inducement. (Dkt. No. 34 at 17.) Specifically, 

OmniVision contends that the Greenthread fails to sufficiently plead that OmniVision had (1) the 

requisite specific intent to induce infringement and (2) knowledge of the Asserted Patents. (Id.) 

Greenthread argues that when “a manufacturer includes in its product a component that can 

only infringe, the inference that infringement is intended is unavoidable.” (Dkt. No. 37 at 17) 

(quoting Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Greenthread argues 

that it has pled that the OmniVision products have no substantial noninfringing use, and thus it is 

appropriate to infer that OmniVision had the requisite specific intent to induce infringement. (Id.) 

Greenthread further argues that OmniVision cannot dispute that it had knowledge of the Asserted 

Patents at least as of the filing of the Complaint, precluding dismissal. (Id.) 

The Court agrees with Greenthread. First, Greenthread has plead that the accused products 

necessarily infringe without modification by customers. “[I]t is entirely appropriate to presume 

that one who sells a product containing a component that has no substantial noninfringing use in 

that product does so with the intent that the component will be used to infringe.” Ricoh, 550 F.3d 

at 1338 (emphasis in original). Second, OmniVision cannot dispute that it had knowledge of the 

Asserted Patents at least as of the filing of the Complaint. “[I]t would be premature at this early 

stage in the proceedings to distinguish between pre-suit and post-filing conduct for the purposes 

Case 2:23-cv-00212-JRG Document 90 Filed 12/14/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 3091
7

of induced infringement when it cannot be disputed that Plaintiff ‘does sufficiently plead that the 

[Defendants] had knowledge of the [Asserted Patents] for at least some time during the 

infringement period.’” BillJCo, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-181, 2021 WL 6618529, at 

*6 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2021). Accordingly, the Court finds that Greenthread has pled sufficient 

factual allegations to state a claim for induced infringement. 

IV. CONCLUSIONS

For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 

34) should be and hereby is DENIED. 

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of December, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00212-JRG Document 90 Filed 12/14/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 3092