Crandall Technologies LLC v. VUDU, Inc.

Background

Crandall Technologies LLC asserted direct and indirect infringement of the ‘341 and ‘720 patents. The ‘341 patent includes systems and methods for wirelessly transmitting videos stored on a touchscreen device to a separate television. The ‘720 patent includes software and systems performing similar functions. The complaint accused VUDU’s applications of allowing users to stream movies rented or purchased from VUDU’s online store through a casting device to an external television.

VUDU moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court acknowledged similarities between the accused products and Crandall’s patents but held that the complaint did not adequately plead all required elements of the asserted infringement theories.

Direct Infringement

The court held that Crandall sufficiently alleged that VUDU’s technology performed significant portions of the patented methods and systems, but it did not allege enough facts to attribute every step of any claimed method or system to VUDU. Allegations that VUDU had used its application with a television and casting device during testing also lacked enough detail to determine whether the testing likely or necessarily constituted infringement.

The complaint likewise did not adequately allege direct infringement by people acting under VUDU’s direction and control, either as VUDU’s agents or because the benefit of VUDU’s product was conditioned on completing the patented method.

Indirect and Willful Infringement

The court held that the induced-infringement claim failed because the complaint did not allege facts supporting the required specific intent to cause another person to infringe. The court also held that the contributory-infringement claim failed because the complaint did not address whether VUDU’s products had any substantial non-infringing use.

The court did not decide whether filing the complaint itself could establish VUDU’s knowledge of the patents, because the induced- and contributory-infringement claims failed for other reasons. The court stated that, if Crandall filed an amended complaint, the allegations in the existing complaint would be enough to give VUDU knowledge of the two patents.

Because Crandall had not adequately alleged direct infringement, the court also dismissed the willful-infringement claim.

Disposition

The court granted VUDU’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Crandall’s claims with leave to amend and ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 21 days after the order was filed. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.