Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023

The Texas patent litigation monthly update for January 2023 summarizes one patent decision that issued from the Western District of Texas. This decision is one of the first Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss granted in a patent proceeding in recent years in the Western District of Texas.

On September 21, 2022, Wiesblatt Licensing LLC filed a patent infringement case against Razer USA, Ltd. in the Western District of Texas (Case 6:22-cv-00990-FB, W.D. Tex.). The case was randomly assigned to Judge Fred Biery pursuant to the District’s Order Assigning Business of the Court as it Relates to Patent Cases. In its complaint, Wiesblatt asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,396,112 (the “’112 Patent”), titled “Circuitry and Method for Transferring Data, and Circuitry and Method Utilizing Clock Pulses.” The ’112 Patent is directed to circuitries relating to computer hardware, or specifically, “a circuitry for transferring data” and “a circuitry that uses clock pulses.” (’112 Patent at Abstract.)

In its complaint, Wiesblatt alleged that Razer’s “plurality of electronics with circuitry for transferring data,”—for example, the Razer Blade 15 laptop computer, and Razer’s gaming handheld devices such as the “Razer Edge Wi-Fi, Razer Edge Founders Edition, and the Razer Edge 5G”—infringed the ’112 Patent. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 19–27.) More specifically, Wiesblatt made various assertions in its complaint (Id. at ¶ 24) and also alleged that Razer “induc[ed]” “and/or contribut[ed] to” the infringement of the ’112 patent. (Complaint at ¶ 29.) It asserted that “Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’112 Patent at least as the date it received service of the Original Complaint in this litigation,” and that “Plaintiff will rely on direct and/or circumstantial evidence to prove the intent element.” (Id. at ¶¶ 21, 31.)

On November 28, Razer filed its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 8.) In the portion of the motion that argues for dismissal of the direct infringement claims, Razer argued that “Wiesblatt’s claimed technology is complex enough to require a heightened level of detail in pleading infringement,” and further explained that “Wiesblatt’s Complaint does not even have the bare minimum needed for less complex technology.” (Id.) Razer further explained that Weisblatt’s “only “factual allegations” regarding the ’112 patent are a formulaic recitation of the asserted Claim 1,” and provided the following table to demonstrate (emphasis in original):

The main problem of the complaint, according to Razer, is that it “makes no attempt to identify how the Accused Instrumentalities infringe Claim 1, but instead simply provides a word-for-word regurgitation of the claim language, along with generic ‘examples’ of what the claim language supposedly covers.” (Id.) “For instance, the Complaint alleges that the claimed “variable power supply voltage generator” is, “e.g.”, a “PMIC,” apparently short for “power management integrated circuit,” a general term for all integrated circuits that perform functions related to power management,” but “Plaintiff does not provide any explanation for how such an alleged PMIC is related to the Accused Instrumentalities, or what specific component of the Accused Instrumentalities constitute the alleged ‘PMIC’ or satisfy the ‘variable power supply voltage generator’ element” (Id., internal citations omitted.)

Razer also raised Wiesblatt’s other litigations and argued that “Plaintiff identifies the same paraphrased claim language as allegedly infringing features in its lawsuits against other unrelated defendants, making no effort to tailor the allegations for different accused devices.” (Id.)

To further its argument to support dismissal of Wiesblatt’s indirect infringement claims, Razer also made the following arguments in the motion. For indirect infringement, Razer argued that Wiesblatt failed to plead any facts that would support its allegation that Razer had pre-suit knowledge of the ’112 patent, or that Razer had the specific intent to induce infringement. (Id.) For contributory infringement, Razer also argued that Weisblatt failed to identify the “‘component,’ i.e. ‘an item that was not itself covered by the claims of a patent but that enabled another party to make or use a patented machine, process, or combination” that allegedly contributes to the infringement. (Id. (citing Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 761 (2011).) After all, Razer argues, “[t]he Accused Instrumentalities, including Razer’s laptop computers, are entire products, not components.” (Dkt. 8.)

Finally, to address the willful infringement allegations, Razer reiterated that Weisblatt failed to plead that Razer had pre-suit knowledge of the alleged infringement. (Id.) Weisblatt alleged that Razer “has been willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff” because “Defendant has a practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others.” (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 33.) Razer argued that under case law in the current court, “policy that forbids its employees from reading patents held by outside companies or individuals is insufficient to meet the test of willful blindness.” (Dkt. 8 (citing to VLSI Tech., LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:19-CV-000254-ADA, 2019 WL 11025759, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2019).)

On January 4, 2023, Judge Biery granted Razer’s motion to dismiss, making it one of the first Rule 12(b)(6) motions granted in patent proceedings in the Western District of Texas in recent years. (Dkt. 14.)