Apple Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.

Background

Apple sued AliveCor for allegedly infringing four patents related to electrocardiogram technology and related applications. The asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 10,076,257; 10,270,898; 10,866,619; and 10,568,533. Apple accused AliveCor’s KardiaMobile Card, KardiaMobile, KardiaMobile 6L, Kardia App, KardiaPro, Kardia care, and related products of direct infringement. Apple also alleged induced infringement, meaning that AliveCor knowingly encouraged customers to infringe, and contributory infringement, meaning that AliveCor supplied products or components allegedly especially suited for infringement and lacking substantial lawful uses.

AliveCor filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The motion challenged only Apple’s indirect-infringement claims.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Apple plausibly alleged the required knowledge. For indirect infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant knew of the patent and knew that the induced acts constituted infringement. The court followed the majority view in the Northern District of California that service of a complaint can provide notice of the patent for purposes of later-occurring indirect infringement. The court also found that Apple’s complaint contained enough detail to satisfy this pleading requirement, including an instruction manual describing how to use the KardiaMobile 6L to measure heart rhythms and process that information.

For induced infringement, the court explained that a plaintiff must plead specific intent to encourage infringement, not merely make conclusory accusations. It found Apple’s allegations sufficient because Apple described, on an element-by-element basis, why the accused products allegedly infringed and cited promotional and other materials that allegedly instructed users to use the products in an infringing manner.

For contributory infringement, the court explained that Apple had to connect specific components of the accused products to an infringing use and plausibly allege that those components had no substantial non-infringing uses. The court found Apple’s allegations sufficient at the pleading stage. It also rejected AliveCor’s argument that Apple had alleged lawful uses that defeated its contributory-infringement theory. The court stated that whether Apple could ultimately prove the absence of substantial non-infringing uses would be decided later.

Disposition

The court DENIED AliveCor’s partial motion to dismiss. This ruling addressed whether Apple had adequately pleaded its indirect-infringement claims; it did not determine whether AliveCor ultimately infringed the patents. The court also SET a case-management conference for July 11, 2023, and DIRECTED the parties to file an updated joint case-management statement by July 5, 2023.