Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc.

Background

Viavi Solutions Inc. brought this patent case against Platinum Optics Technology Inc. Viavi initially alleged induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) involving four patents. After the court granted Platinum’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringement and allowed Viavi to add direct-infringement allegations, Viavi filed a second amended complaint concerning three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,588,269, 10,222,526, and 11,131,794. The patents generally concern optical filters.

Viavi alleged that, in September 2020, Platinum sent wafer samples to a company from Taiwan. Viavi called these the “Accused Samples” and alleged, on information and belief, that they had the same design and filter stack as a previously accused filter, with size being the alleged difference. Viavi attached a claim chart addressing the previously accused filter, not the Accused Samples, and alleged that the charted filter represented the samples. Viavi sought damages, interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and damages for alleged willful infringement.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not have to accept legal conclusions presented as facts. For a patent-infringement claim, a complaint must include enough factual allegations to make it plausible that the accused product meets the patent claim requirements; merely repeating the patent’s claim language is not enough.

Analysis

The court first considered Platinum’s argument that Viavi’s filed second amended complaint improperly changed allegations from the proposed complaint submitted with Viavi’s request to amend. The court observed that the filed complaint included additional allegations, including the assertion that the previously accused filter represented the Accused Samples. But because the court found that Viavi failed to adequately plead direct infringement, it did not decide whether the differences between the two complaints independently justified dismissal.

The court held that Viavi had not plausibly alleged direct infringement. Viavi did not dispute that it had neither viewed nor analyzed an Accused Sample before filing the complaint. The court rejected Viavi’s explanation that it could not obtain more technical information through discovery, noting that the record suggested Viavi’s subpoena to the company reached beyond what Viavi considered the permitted discovery scope and that Viavi could have sought permission for additional limited discovery.

The court also found that Viavi’s allegations that the Accused Samples had the same design and filter stack as the previously accused filter were insufficient. The cited deposition testimony did not compare the Accused Samples with the specific previously accused filter and expressed doubt about whether wafers and filters could be treated as the same. The complaint therefore lacked a factual basis connecting the two products beyond conclusory statements about their size.

The court further held that the claim chart for the previously accused filter did not adequately support infringement allegations concerning the Accused Samples. It also found that Viavi’s narrative allegations largely repeated the patent claim elements and merely concluded that the Accused Samples contained those elements. Even accepting Viavi’s allegations as true, the complaint did not plausibly show that the samples infringed the asserted patents.

Because direct infringement was not sufficiently alleged, the court also dismissed Viavi’s willful-infringement claims.

Disposition

The court granted Platinum’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Viavi was required to file any amended complaint within 21 days of the order. The opinion does not state that the court barred Viavi from filing a further amended complaint.