UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corporation

Background

UTTO Inc., the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,086,441, alleged that Metrotech’s “walk back feature” in its RTK-Pro Utility Locator with Survey-Grade GNSS infringed the patent. UTTO also alleged that Metrotech interfered with UTTO’s prospective economic relationship with Honeywell. Metrotech filed a motion to dismiss UTTO’s Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

This was Metrotech’s fourth motion to dismiss, and the court had previously given UTTO one final opportunity to amend its complaint.

Patent-Infringement Claim

The court focused on the “generating” limitation in Claim 1 of the patent. That limitation requires generating a two-dimensional buffer zone based on a group of buried-asset data points. UTTO argued that, even if the walk-back feature generated a circle around one point at a time, that process was functionally equivalent to the patented method under the doctrine of equivalents. That doctrine can support infringement when the accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result as the claimed invention.

The court rejected the allegations as insufficient. It read the patent’s specification as requiring more than one data point to create the buffer zone by joining or combining circles or other areas associated with the individual points. The court found that the walk-back feature, as alleged, generated an area around one data point at a time and did not join areas around multiple points to create the claimed buffer zone. The court also found that UTTO had not plausibly alleged that the patent itself could generate the relevant buffer zone using only one data point.

Because UTTO did not adequately plead infringement either directly or under the doctrine of equivalents, the court dismissed the infringement claim with prejudice.

Interference Claim

UTTO alleged that Metrotech interfered with UTTO’s expected relationship with Honeywell during discussions about combining UTTO’s software with Metrotech’s hardware. The court acknowledged that UTTO’s amended allegations better supported the existence of an economic relationship, including allegations that Honeywell had sent UTTO a final draft agreement and that the deal was nearly finalized.

The court nevertheless found that UTTO had not plausibly alleged an independently wrongful act by Metrotech. UTTO relied on comments by a Metrotech representative about providing data to UTTO and potentially charging Honeywell extra. The court found it reasonable to interpret those comments as describing additional charges for additional services, not as threatening to withhold Honeywell’s data or price UTTO out of the competition. The court also found unreasonable UTTO’s inference that Metrotech had falsely represented its software expertise. Finally, the court found that UTTO’s references to the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the Stored Communications Act were conclusory and did not explain how Metrotech’s conduct violated those laws.

The court dismissed the interference claim with prejudice because UTTO had repeatedly failed to state a plausible claim.

Disposition

The court granted Metrotech’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed UTTO’s patent-infringement and interference claims with prejudice.