IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

UNIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP 

)

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, )

) Jury Trial Demanded

Defendant. )

)

_______________________________________)

DEFENDANT PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION’S

RULE 12 MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S PRE-SUIT WILLFULNESS CLAIMS

AND STRIKE CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 92
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND............................................................................................2

A. The Complaint ...................................................................................................................2

1. UTL’s allegations regarding Phison’s knowledge of the Asserted Patents ....................2

2. UTL’s assertion of egregious conduct by Phison............................................................3

B. UTL’s Letter Identifying the Asserted Patents...............................................................3

III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................3

A. Willful Infringement..........................................................................................................4

B. Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike ...............................................................................................5

IV. ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................6

A. Unification’s Complaint Fails to Plausibly Allege a Claim for Pre-Suit Willful 

Infringement.......................................................................................................................6

B. Unification’s Complaint Contains Redundant, Immaterial, and Scandalous Matter 

Within the Meaning of Rule 12(f).....................................................................................7

1. UTL’s accusation is redundant and immaterial...............................................................7

2. UTL’s accusation is scandalous......................................................................................8

3. UTL’s accusation has no possible relation to the controversy........................................9

4. Striking UTL’s accusation will not cause prejudice .......................................................9

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................9

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 93
i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 

 306 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1962).........................................................................................5, 6

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

 550 U.S. 544 (2007)..........................................................................................................4

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 

 201 F.2d 819 (6th Cir. 1953).....................................................................................5, 6, 9

Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 

 946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020).........................................................................................4

Florance v. Buchmeyer, 

 500 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Tex. 2007)..............................................................................5

FTC v. Think All Pub. LLC, 

 564 F.Supp.2d 663 (E.D. Tex. 2008)................................................................................5

Halo Elecs, Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 

 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)..................................................................................................4, 8

Jefferson Parish Consol. Garbage Dist. No. 1 v. Waste Mgmt. of La., 

 No. 09–6270 (E.D. La. Apr. 28, 2010) .............................................................................5

Lone Star Fund V (U.S.) L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 

 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010)) ...........................................................................................4

NXP USA Inc. v. MediaTek Inc., 

 No. 2:21-cv-00318 (E.D. Tex. March 15, 2022)...............................................................4

Plano Encryption Techs., LLC v. Alkami Tech., Inc., 

 No. 2:16-cv- 1032, 2017 WL 8727249, (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017).............................4, 7

Script Sec. Solns. L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

 170 F.Supp.3d 928 (E.D. Tex. 2016)................................................................................4

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Blackburn, 

 No. 15-2451 (E.D. La. Sept. 23, 2015) .............................................................................5

Turner v. Pleasant, 

 663 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011).............................................................................................4

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 94
ii

United States v. Coney, 

 689 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2012).............................................................................................6

STATUTES AND RULES

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(c)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

35 U.S.C. § 284 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 4, 7, 8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 5, 7, 10

Local Rule CV-7(a)(1)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 

(3d ED. 2004) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 95
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f), Phison Electronics Corporation (“Phison”) 

moves to dismiss Plaintiff Unification Technologies LLC’s (“UTL’s” or “Plaintiff’s”) pre-suit 

willfulness claims in this action, and to strike UTL’s insufficient, immaterial, and scandalous 

accusations that Phison’s actions are “wanton, malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, consciously 

wrongful, flagrant, characteristic of a pirate, and an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical 

infringement.” UTL’s Complaint lacks factual allegations showing that Phison knew of UTL’s 

patents prior to UTL’s commencement of litigation, and UTL’s conclusory accusations regarding 

Phison’s supposedly egregious behavior – which are unnecessary to state a claim for willfulness 

and lack any underlying factual support – should be stricken from the pleading. Phison submits

this concise motion, in accordance with Local Rule CV-7(a)(1), with two issues to be decided by 

the Court:

(1) Whether Plaintiff UTL’s Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for pre-suit willful 

infringement for each of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,575,902 (the “’902 Patent”), 11,061,825 (the “’825 

Patent”), 11,573,909 (the “’909 Patent”), and 11,640,359 (the “’359 Patent”) (collectively, the 

“Asserted Patents” or “Patents-In-Suit”); and

(2) Whether Plaintiff UTL’s statement repeated in each of paragraphs 57, 80, 101, and 122 

of the Complaint (each a willful infringement allegation) describing Phison’s actions as “wanton, 

malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, characteristic of a pirate, and 

an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical infringement” is redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 96
2

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

UTL filed this suit on June 2, 2023, accusing Phison of direct infringement, inducement of 

infringement and willful infringement of the four Asserted Patents. Compl. ¶¶ 36, 57, 63, 80, 86, 

101, 107, 122 (ECF No. 1). In its description of the parties, UTL describes itself as a Texas Limited 

Liability Company with its principal place of business in Frisco, Texas. Id. ¶ 1. UTL does not 

disclose its own business but describes Phison as a Taiwanese corporation and a “market leader in 

NAND flash controllers and related products sold and distributed in the United States and the 

World,” Id. at ¶ 2. UTL further alleges that Phison and its subsidiary conduct business activities 

in the United States in places such as Texas and California. Id. ¶¶ 3, 7-13. UTL’s allegations further 

note that Phison sells its controllers to “KIOXIA, Kingston and Micron,” and “major brand 

customers and system integrators in the U.S., Europe and Japan.” Id. ¶ 18. UTL also notes in its

allegations Phison’s product literature describing its development partnership with Seagate. Id. ¶ 

66. 

1. UTL’s allegations regarding Phison’s knowledge of the Asserted Patents

Under a boldface, underlined and all-capital heading, “DEFENDANT’S PRE-SUIT 

KNOWLEDGE OF ITS INFRINGEMENT,” UTL states that it “sent a letter to Phison prior to 

filing this Complaint identifying the Asserted Patents as being infringed by exemplary Phison 

products, and further includ[ing] claim charts demonstrating how the identified products infringe 

the Asserted Patents.” Id. ¶ 30. In each count of its Complaint, UTL adds that Phison knew of the 

Asserted Patents at a minimum, “since being served with this Complaint,” and then repeats that 

“Phison also has knowledge of the [ ] Patent since receiving detailed correspondence from UTL 

prior to the filing of the Complaint, alerting Phison to its infringements.” Id. ¶¶ 56, 79, 100, 121. 

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 97
3

2. UTL’s assertion of egregious conduct by Phison

UTL also alleges in each count that “Phison’s infringing activities relative to the [ ] Patent 

have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton, malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, consciously 

wrongful, flagrant, characteristic of a pirate, and an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical 

infringement such that UTL is entitled to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 up to three 

times the amount found or assessed.” Id. ¶¶ 57, 80, 101, 122. UTL does not identify in its 

Complaint what of Phison’s alleged conduct it considers to be egregious.

B. UTL’s Letter Identifying the Asserted Patents

In a letter dated May 30, 2023, UTL, through its counsel, described the Asserted Patents in 

a message addressed to Phison’s president. Chin Decl., Ex. A.1 The letter enclosed claim charts 

regarding the Asserted Patents and invited Phison to discuss the portfolio.2 Id. However, the letter 

was not received at Phison’s offices in Taiwan until June 2, 2023, the day UTL filed its Complaint. 

Id., Exs. B-C.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain 

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

12(b)(6) permits dismissal of claims that fail to meet this standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate “if the complaint fails to plead ‘enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 

1 “Chin Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Douglas E. Chin, filed concurrently and in support 

of this motion.

2 The enclosed claim charts were received by Phison with cut-off and blurred portions, and 

despite UTL’s overture seeking discussion, no other communication was received from UTL prior 

to suit.

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 98
4

2011) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). When considering the 

motion, “[t]he 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. Solns. L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 170 F.Supp.3d 928 (E.D. Tex. 

2016) (citing Lone Star Fund V (U.S.) L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010)). 

B. Willful Infringement

A plaintiff may claim enhanced damages for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which 

allows a court to increase damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. 35 U.S.C. §

284; see also Halo Elecs, Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) (describing the enhanced 

damages available under § 284 as “punitive or ‘increased’ damages [that] could be recovered ‘in 

a case of willful or bad-faith infringement’” (citation omitted). To plead such willful infringement 

under § 284, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant intentionally or knowingly infringed the 

asserted patents. Plano Encryption Techs., LLC v. Alkami Tech., Inc., No. 2:16-cv- 1032, 2017 

WL 8727249, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017) (citing Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1926). No more than this 

is necessary at the pleading stage, because intentional or knowing infringement is all the concept 

of ‘willfulness’ requires a jury to find. NXP USA Inc. v. MediaTek Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00318 (E.D. 

Tex. March 15, 2022) (citing Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946 F.3d 

1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

The question of whether an accused infringer’s conduct rises to the level of egregious 

behavior is not appropriate for jury consideration, and is addressed by the court once an affirmative 

finding of willfulness has been made. Eko Brands, 946 F.3d at 1378. Thus, whether an accused 

infringer’s conduct is “egregious behavior” is committed to the discretion of the district court. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 99
5

C. Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike

Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading, the court may strike from a 

pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Courts have used their discretion to strike material no longer having relevance 

to issues before the court, Jefferson Parish Consol. Garbage Dist. No. 1 v. Waste Mgmt. of La., 

No. 09–6270 (E.D. La. Apr. 28, 2010) (striking declaratory claim for relief because conditions 

under which relief was sought did not occur, and issue was moot), or that adds nothing to factual 

allegations, claims or defenses already before the court, FTC v. Think All Pub. LLC, 564 F.Supp.2d 

663, 665-66 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (striking affirmative defenses that were merely “restatements of 

denials of certain allegations that were made elsewhere in the Defendants' Answer”). Regarding 

whether the challenged matter is redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous:

“It is normally apparent on the face of the pleading whether the challenged matter 

is objectionable under Rule 12(f). ‘Redundant’ matter consists of allegations that 

constitute ‘a needless repetition of other averments in the pleading.’ 5C Charles 

Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 (3d ed. 

2004). ‘Immaterial’ matter is that which ‘has no essential or important 

relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded,’ such as 

superfluous historical allegations, ‘or a statement of unnecessary particulars in 

connection with and descriptive of that which is material.’ Id. Furthermore, 

‘impertinent’ matter consists of statements that ‘do not pertain, and are not 

necessary, to the issues in question.’ Id. Lastly, ‘scandalous’ matter is that which 

‘improperly casts a derogatory light on someone,’ id., or ‘states anything in 

repulsive language that detracts from the dignity of the court.’ Florance v. 

Buchmeyer, 500 F. Supp. 2d 618, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2007).”

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Blackburn, No. 15-2451 (E.D. La. Sept. 23, 2015).

In the Fifth Circuit, “motion[s] to strike should be granted only when the pleading to be 

stricken has no possible relation to the controversy.” Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of 

Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco 

Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953)); accord United States v. Coney, 689 

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 100
6

F.3d 365, 379 (5th Cir. 2012). In its holding setting forth the foregoing rule, the Sixth Circuit in 

Brown noted the danger of removing relevant factual allegations from a dispute, stating:

Partly because of the practical difficulty of deciding cases without a factual record 

it is well established that the action of striking a pleading should be sparingly used 

by the courts. It is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the 

purposes of justice. The motion to strike should be granted only when the pleading 

to be stricken has no possible relation to the controversy.

201 F.2d at 822 (citations omitted). The appeals court then reversed the ruling below and instructed 

the district court to reinstate the factual allegations removed from the answer, because the 

allegations related to valid issues of fact and law that might be raised at trial. Id. at 823. Consistent 

with this reasoning in Brown, the Fifth Circuit has reversed the striking of factual allegations that 

form an alternative basis for a party’s position in a dispute, Coney, 689 F.3d at 1379 (“Here, the 

disputed statements were material and pertinent to the underlying controversy because filing a 

fraudulent tax return is an alternative basis for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 

523(a)(1)(C)”) or that describe an injury suffered by parties to a dispute, Augustus, 306 F.2d at 

868 (“[A]ppellants call attention to the averment of the complaint that, ‘the plaintiffs, and members 

of their class, are injured by the policy . . . .’ The appellants argue that the district court erred in 

assuming that the Negro pupils could not be injured by that policy. . . . [W]e do not think that a 

matter of such importance should be decided on motion to strike.”).

IV. ARGUMENT

A. Unification’s Complaint Fails to Plausibly Allege a Claim for Pre-Suit Willful 

Infringement

It’s simple: UTL’s own Complaint shows that Phison was made aware of the Asserted 

Patents contemporaneously with this suit, and not before. Beneath a boldface, underlined and allcapital heading entitled “DEFENDANT’S PRE-SUIT KNOWLEDGE OF ITS 

INFRINGEMENT,” UTL announces that its basis for alleging Phison’s pre-suit knowledge is the 

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 101
7

letter it sent Phison prior to filing the Complaint. Compl. ¶ 30. But, as shown above, Phison didn’t 

receive the letter until June 2, the day UTL filed this suit. Chin Decl. Exs. B-C. Accepting the 

allegations in UTL’s Complaint as true, UTL’s reliance on this letter establishes that Phison’s

knowledge of the Asserted Patents began on the same date as this action.

A claim for willful infringement requires that intentional or knowing infringement be 

alleged, Plano Encryption Techs., 2017 WL 8727249, at *2, and UTL’s Complaint lacks factual 

allegations suggesting that Phison possessed such knowledge prior to suit. UTL alleges the 

contrary, in fact, and thus UTL has pleaded its way out of a pre-suit willfulness claim.

B. Unification’s Complaint Contains Redundant, Immaterial, and Scandalous 

Matter Within the Meaning of Rule 12(f)

UTL’s Complaint contains the conclusory statement that Phison’s alleged infringement for 

each of the Asserted Patents is not only willful, but “wanton, malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, 

consciously wrongful, flagrant, characteristic of a pirate, and an egregious case of misconduct 

beyond typical infringement” (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 80, 101, 122), an accusation that adds nothing to the 

controversy, and should be stricken under Rule 12(f).

1. UTL’s accusation is redundant and immaterial

UTL’s accusation is redundant and immaterial because UTL has separately invoked 35 

U.S.C. § 284, alleging that Phison had (1) knowledge of the Asserted Patents and (2) committed 

underlying acts of direct infringement and inducement of infringement in a (3) ‘willful’ manner,

Compl. ¶¶ 30, 36, 57, 63, 80, 86, 101, 107, 122, and the accusation raises no claim for relief or 

factual allegation on its own. To the extent UTL intended its accusation to comprise its willfulness 

claim, it is duplicative of the separate allegations establishing that willfulness claim3, and is 

3 As stated supra at section IV.A, Phison disputes whether UTL has successfully pled a claim 

for pre-suit willful infringement. Though Phison does not challenge UTL's claims for post-suit 

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 102
8

therefore redundant. To the extent that UTL’s accusation is meant to direct the Court in its 

determination regarding willful infringement, the accusation is unsupported by any facts and is 

therefore immaterial. For while it alludes to behavior that might warrant enhanced damages,4 the 

accusation is unsupported by any allegation in UTL’s Complaint that might distinguish the alleged 

acts of infringement from typical, “garden-variety”5 infringement. And because there is no such 

support for the accusation of egregious behavior, UTL’s accusation amounts to an unfounded 

assertion – just the bare conclusion UTL wants the Court to make on its willfulness claim.6

2. UTL’s accusation is scandalous

Though UTL’s accusation is redundant and immaterial, it does impugn Phison’s business 

reputation, and is therefore scandalous. UTL’s Complaint describes Phison as a “market leader in 

NAND flash controllers and related products sold and distributed in the United States and the 

World,” Compl. ¶ 2. Portions of the paragraphs in UTL’s pleading further describe Phison’s and 

its subsidiary’s activities in places across the United States such as Texas and California, 

supporting customers and partners such as Micron, Kingston, and Seagate. Id. ¶¶ 3, 7-13, 18, 66.7

willful infringement, direct infringement, or inducement of infringement in this motion, it reserves 

the right to do so in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2). 4 “The sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our 

cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad- faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—

indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1932 (citation omitted).

5 Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1935 (noting the careful policy balance that would be disrupted if 

enhanced damages were awarded in such cases).

6 The Supreme Court has further stated that egregious behavior is not even a guarantee of 

enhanced damages for willful infringement. Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933-34 (“[N]one of this is to say 

that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct. As with any exercise of 

discretion, courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of each case in 

deciding whether to award damages, and in what amount. Section 284 permits district courts to 

exercise their discretion in a manner free from the inelastic constraints of the Seagate test”).

7 Phison reserves its right to dispute or deny portions of these paragraphs, and in no way 

intends any statement in this motion as a wholesale admission of the allegations of any paragraph 

in the Complaint. Phison will specify the particular allegations admitted or denied in these 

paragraphs in its Answer.

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 103
9

Rather than even suggesting questionable behavior, these descriptions are a nod to Phison’s 

dedication over the last twenty-plus years to providing valuable and reliable products and services 

to its customers. UTL’s wholly unsupported accusation about egregious behavior by Phison 

adversely affects its relationships with its customers but serves no useful purpose in this suit or 

anywhere else. Accordingly, this scandalous accusation should be stricken from the pleading.

3. UTL’s accusation has no possible relation to the controversy

UTL’s conclusory accusation is just that and nothing more. By itself it raises no issue of 

fact or law to be decided, and therefore has no possible relation to the controversy. See Brown, 201 

F.2d at 823 (holding that the Brown defendants had raised such issues in the allegations that had 

been removed, and thus the material should not have been stricken). 

4. Striking UTL’s accusation will not cause prejudice

Should UTL find some basis to allege this accusation during discovery (it will not), UTL

will have ample opportunity to assert it in a motion for summary judgment or at trial for the Court’s 

review. No delay will result from striking this accusation, as UTL’s claim for willful infringement 

is separate and will be unaffected, and UTL’s accusation does not relate to any question for the 

jury. UTL’s accusation should not be allowed to remain in the Complaint untethered to any factual 

allegation and based on future facts that may or may not exist (they do not).

V. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Phison respectfully requests that the Court GRANT this

Motion and find that:

(1) Plaintiff UTL’s Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for pre-suit willful 

infringement for each of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,575,902, 11,061,825, 11,573,909, and 11,640,359; and

(2) Plaintiff UTL’s statement repeated in each of paragraphs 57, 80, 101, and 122 of the 

Complaint describing Phison’s actions as “wanton, malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, consciously 

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 104
10

wrongful, flagrant, characteristic of a pirate, and an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical 

infringement” is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter within the meaning of 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and is stricken from the pleading.

Dated: August 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Douglas E. Chin

Douglas E. Chin

Hsuanyeh Chang, PhD

Stephen Y. Chow

Peter C. Yi

HSUANYEH LAW GROUP, PC

11 Beacon Street, Suite 900

Boston, MA 02108

Tel: (617) 886-9088

Email: doug.chin@hsuanyeh.com

Email: hsuanyeh@hsuanyeh.com

Email: stephen.y.chow@hsuanyeh.com

Email: peter.yi@hsuanyeh.com

Attorneys for Phison Electronics Corp.

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 105
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Douglas E. Chin, counsel for Phison Electronics Corp., hereby certify that, on August 

23, 2023, I served a copy of Defendant Phison Electronics Corporation’s Rule 12 Motion To 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Pre-Suit Willfulness Claims And Strike Certain Allegations and attachments on 

counsel for Unification Technologies LLC by filing this document electronically through the 

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system.

 /s/ Douglas E. Chin

Douglas E. Chin 

Case 2:23-cv-00266-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 08/23/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 106