Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:16-cv-00186
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Chrimar Systems v. Ruckus Wireless, Judge Illston dismissed Count I with prejudice because the asserted patent claim had been found unpatentable.
Chrimar Systems Inc. and Chrimar Holding Company LLC’s Count I claim against Ruckus Wireless, Inc. concerning infringement of claim 103 of the ’107 patent; the court’s order dismissed that count with prejudice.
What happened
Chrimar Systems Inc. and Chrimar Holding Company LLC sued Ruckus Wireless, Inc. and others for allegedly infringing several patents. The first count of Chrimar’s Third Amended Complaint alleged infringement of claim 103 of the ’107 patent, including its dependence on claim 87.
Ruckus and the other defendants argued that claim 103 had already been found unpatentable in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Chrimar argued that claim 103 as applied through claim 87 had not been reviewed and therefore could still support an infringement claim.
In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless Inc., Judge Susan Illston agreed with the defendants and granted their motion to dismiss Count I with prejudice. The ruling addressed the ’107-patent infringement count; the opinion does not state dispositions for the other counts.
The detailed version
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless Inc. · No. 3:16-cv-00186
- Susan Illston
- Apr. 16, 2020
Background
Chrimar Systems Inc. and Chrimar Holding Company LLC sued Juniper Networks Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Netgear Inc., and Fortinet Inc. for allegedly infringing four patents. The actions were transferred to the Northern District of California, and the court stayed them while the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviewed challenges to the patents’ claims.
The PTAB found challenged claims of the ’107 patent unpatentable as obvious over identified prior art, including Hunter and Bulan. The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decisions, and the Supreme Court denied Chrimar’s petition for review. The case’s first count alleged infringement of claim 103 of the ’107 patent, asserted across claim 87.
Motion and arguments
The defendants moved to strike, or alternatively dismiss, Count I. They argued that the claim violated the court’s scheduling order and, separately, that Chrimar could not plausibly allege infringement because claim 103 had been invalidated. Chrimar argued that claim 103 asserted across claim 87 was different from the versions challenged in the PTAB proceedings and therefore had not been invalidated. Chrimar also sought permission to amend its infringement contentions, but the court did not analyze that request because it rejected Chrimar’s underlying position.
Court’s reasoning
A claim survives a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) only if the complaint alleges enough facts to make the requested relief plausible. For patent infringement, the allegations must place the accused infringer on notice of the alleged infringement.
The court explained that claim 103 is a multiple dependent claim. Such a claim incorporates the limitations of the particular earlier claim to which it refers. The court agreed with the defendants that the PTAB had invalidated claim 103 itself, rather than only particular combinations of claim 103 with the dependent claims identified in the earlier infringement contentions. The court therefore concluded that Chrimar could not maintain an infringement claim based on claim 103 across claim 87.
Disposition
Judge Susan Illston granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I of Chrimar’s Third Amended Complaint for infringement of the ’107 patent with prejudice. The opinion does not state a disposition for the remaining counts.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.