Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180129_0000044.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:46:43+00:00

Document:
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant.
1. In this patent infringement action filed by Plaintiff Microchip Technology Inc. ("Plaintiff), Defendant Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC ("Defendant") has filed a motion to dismiss Count III of the Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the "Motion"). (D.I. 15) In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly and indirectly infringes "at least claim 7" of United States Patent No. 7, 478, 191 ("the '191 patent"). (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 75-91) The instant Motion has been referred to the Court for resolution by Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark, (D.I. 8), was fully briefed as of November 1, 2017, (D.I. 28), and was argued at a Case Management Conference held on December 18, 2017.
2. The standard of review here is the familiar two-part analysis applicable to motions made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Raindance Techs., Inc. v. Wx Genomics, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) (applying the Twombly/Iqbal standard to claims of direct patent infringement filed subsequent to the December 2015 abrogation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and patent pleading Form 18); see also North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., Civil Action No. 17-506-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5501489, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017). First, the court separates the factual and legal elements of a claim, accepting "all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but [disregarding] any legal conclusions." Fowler v. UPMC Shady side, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Second, the court determines "whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief" Id. at 211 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). A plausible claim does more than merely allege entitlement to relief; it must also demonstrate the basis for that "entitlement with its facts." Id. Thus, a claimant's "obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In assessing the plausibility of a claim, the court must '"construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief" Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (quoting Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)).
wherein the switching logic is operable to automatically provide connectivity between the second input and one or more of the plurality of peripheral device inputs when the second USB host device is connected to the second input wherein the switching logic is configured to maintain connectivity between the first input and remaining ones of the plurality of peripheral device inputs that were not provided connectivity to the second input.
4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes the claim at least through its using and/or testing of its Delphi Dual Role Hub product, and that Defendant indirectly infringes by inducing or contributing to infringement by the product's end users, who include Defendant's customers (e.g., auto manufacturers) and individuals who use automobiles that include the accused hub product. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 82-83) Thus, in order to establish direct infringement of claim 7 (by Defendant or end users), Plaintiff needs to have pleaded facts that plausibly indicate that the accused product contains each of the limitations found in the claim. See e. Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-05790-JST, 2016 WL 4427209, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016); Raindance Techs., Inc., 2016 WL 927143, at *2-3; see also North Star, 2017 WL 5501489, at *1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.