Huang v. TetraMem, Inc.

Background

Xiaohua Huang, a pro se plaintiff, alleged that TetraMem, Inc. infringed U.S. Patent No. RE45,259, which Huang alleged he owns. This was Huang’s second action against TetraMem in the district alleging infringement of that patent. Huang voluntarily dismissed the earlier related proceeding before the court decided TetraMem’s pending motion to dismiss, then filed this action less than nine months later with very similar claims.

TetraMem moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. It also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike portions of the complaint and under Rule 11 for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Patent-infringement allegations

Huang appeared to assert direct infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, induced infringement, and contributory infringement. The court explained that a direct-infringement complaint must plausibly allege that the accused product meets every limitation of at least one asserted patent claim. The court also described the additional allegations required for induced and contributory infringement.

The court found that Huang’s allegations were confusing, often unintelligible, and filled with lengthy irrelevant material. It concluded that the allegations merely recited patent-claim elements and asserted that TetraMem’s products met them, without specific facts explaining why the products plausibly infringed any claim of the patent. The court therefore granted TetraMem’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The court determined that further amendment would be futile. It noted that Huang had received repeated notice of deficiencies in this action and the earlier related proceeding, including a letter from TetraMem, but had not revised his allegations to address those deficiencies. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Motion to strike

TetraMem sought to strike paragraphs 10 through 14 of the amended complaint. Those paragraphs accused defense counsel, judges, and others involved in Huang’s patent litigation of misconduct. The court found the allegations immaterial because they did not plead facts relevant to direct, induced, or contributory patent infringement, and because they risked harming TetraMem’s public reputation. The court granted TetraMem’s motion to strike those paragraphs.

Attorneys’ fees and costs

TetraMem argued that Huang’s repeated assertion of allegedly baseless claims, his other patent lawsuits, and two $1,000 money orders sent to TetraMem’s counsel supported sanctions under Rule 11. The court acknowledged that the complaint bordered on frivolous or harassing, but said Huang’s pro se status required it to resolve doubts in his favor when deciding whether the filing was reasonable.

The court concluded that, when read liberally and in light of Huang’s pro se status, the complaint did not warrant Rule 11 sanctions. It therefore denied TetraMem’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court cautioned Huang that reasserting similar claims against TetraMem would likely lead to Rule 11 sanctions because the claims had been dismissed with prejudice.

Disposition

TetraMem’s motions to dismiss and to strike portions of Huang’s complaint were granted. TetraMem’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs was denied.