Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corporation
3:12-cv-01652
| N.D. Tex. | Apr 26, 2016Background
- MTel sued BlackBerry (formerly RIM entities) alleging infringement of five patents: the ’862, ’804, ’946, ’428, and ’506 patents; willful infringement was pleaded.
- BlackBerry moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of willfulness claims for the four patents other than the ’862 and dismissal of allegations as to the ’862 for lack of adequate pleading.
- The court previously denied an earlier motion but granted MTel leave to amend its willfulness allegations after discovery and warned that failure to move to amend could result in dismissal for the four patents other than the ’862.
- Discovery concluded and MTel did not file a motion for leave to amend; MTel elected to stand on its original complaint.
- The complaint contained specific pre-filing knowledge allegations tied to the ’862 patent (including notice via a PTO Office Action relating to a RIM patent application) but only conclusory, boilerplate willfulness allegations for the other four patents.
- The court evaluated whether MTel’s pleadings met the pleading standard for willful infringement and whether knowledge attributed to a related RIM entity could survive a pleading-stage challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of willfulness pleadings for the ’428, ’496, ’506, and ’804 patents | MTel stands on its original complaint and argues the pleadings are adequate to allege willfulness | BlackBerry argues the allegations are conclusory and fail to plead pre-suit knowledge or objective recklessness | Court: Granted BlackBerry’s motion as to these four patents; willfulness claims dismissed for failure to plead facts showing pre-suit knowledge or willful conduct |
| Sufficiency of willfulness pleadings for the ’862 patent | MTel alleges pre-filing knowledge of the ’862 via a PTO Office Action to a related RIM patent application and alleges infringement and willfulness | BlackBerry contends allegations target a different RIM entity and knowledge cannot be imputed; also argues pleadings lack facts showing objective recklessness | Court: Denied BlackBerry’s motion as to the ’862; allegations of pre-filing knowledge and willfulness are sufficient at the pleading stage |
| Imputation of knowledge between related corporate RIM entities at pleading stage | MTel relies on allegations about RIM’s knowledge (a related entity) to show defendant’s knowledge | BlackBerry argues parent/subsidiary knowledge cannot be imputed without pleading facts showing the necessary nexus | Court: Rejected the notion that specific factual nexus must be pled to survive dismissal; declined to require more at pleading stage |
| Effect of court’s prior leave-to-amend direction and MTel’s failure to amend | MTel elected not to amend and proceeds on original pleadings | BlackBerry argues dismissal is appropriate because MTel ignored the court’s invitation to amend after discovery | Court: Held MTel’s failure to move for leave to amend justified dismissal of willfulness claims for the four patents other than the ’862 |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitutoyo Corp. v. Central Purchasing, LLC, 499 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (pleading pre-filing knowledge plus infringement can be sufficient to state a claim for willful infringement)