Motion to dismiss denied

Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd’s complaint that it infringes three of CPC’s patents is DENIED
January 12, 2022 By Charter Pacific


On 12 January 2022 United States District Judge Alan D Albright denies Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd’s complaint that it infringes three of CPC’s patents.

Below is an extract of the Memorandum Opinion and Order from Judge Albright.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT​

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS​

WACO DIVISION​

CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
Plaintiff, CASE NO. 6:21-CV-00165-ADA
v.
APPLE INC., JULY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court considers Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff CPC Patent Technologies PTY LTD.’s complaint. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff filed its opposition, and Defendant filed its reply. ECF Nos. 25, 26.
Plaintiff complained that Defendant directly and indirectly infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,269,208 (“’208 Patent”, 9,665,705 (“’705 Patent”, and 8,620,039 (“’039 Patent”. ECF No. 1 at 27-28, 33-34, 39-40. Plaintiff accuses Defendant’s iPhones and iPads with Apple Card loaded into the iPhone Wallet of infringing the ’039 Patent and accuses iPhones and iPads with TouchID or FaceID of infringing the ’208 Patent and ’705 Patent. Id. 2. Plaintiff seeks past damages. Id. at 7. The complaint attaches supporting documents and infringement claim charts. ECF No. 1, Exs. A-J.
After careful consideration of the briefs and applicable law, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiff’s Motion.
CONCLUSION

Column 1

0

Defendant’s motion to dismiss direct and indirect infringement of the ’039 Patent is GRANTED-IN-PART. Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint within one week of this Order that clearly articulates its infringement theory. Defendant’s motion to dismiss direct and indirect infringement claims of the ’208 and ’705 Patents is DENIED. Defendant has leave to renew its motion if Defendant prevails on the disputed construction at the Markman hearing and Plaintiff fails to amend its infringement contentions consistent with the prevailing construction. Defendant’s motion to dismiss claims to past damages is DENIED.

Click here to view the full decision handed down – https://www.charpac.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order.pdf