Case 1:11-cv-00825-RGA Document 172 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1932

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IPLEARN, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BEELINE ACQUISITION CORP., et al., Defendants.
ORDER

Civil Action No. 11-825-RGA

Before the Court is Oracle's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. (D.I. 96). The motion is fully briefed. (D.I. 97, 118, 119, 131, 157, 161). The Plaintiff in its First Amended Complaint asserts that nine patents are infringed, all of which concern computer-aided learning. Various Oracle products - Enterprise Business Suite, iLeaming, Beehive, Live Virtual Class, and PeopleSoft Enterprise - are alleged to be the infringing products. 1 The allegations against Oracle in relation to each patent, consisting of three sentences each, are in all material respects the same. For example, it is alleged that Oracle directly infringes the first patent by "making, using, selling, [etc.] its Enterprise Business Suite (EBS), iLeaming, and reasonably similar products or services." (D.I. 15, ~ 26, first sentence). It then alleges Oracle's contributory infringement since the filing of the original complaint by "selling or offering to sell to customers software products or services, including without limitation EBS and iLeaming, that constitute a material part of the

It is true that the complaint does not limit itself to the named products, but by naming various purported Oracle products and claiming that they and "reasonably similar products or services" are the infringing products, it complies with Form 18.

Case 1:11-cv-00825-RGA Document 172 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1933

invention and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use." (/d., second sentence). It then further alleges since the filing ofthe original complaint Oracle's induced infringement by "selling and offering to sell to customers software products or services, including without limitation EBS and iLearning, with specific intent that these software products or services be used by Oracle customers to infringe the [patent.] (/d., third sentence). Oracle's motion to dismiss seeks to dismiss the claims of direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement. The minimal allegations set forth in the first sentence (combined with jurisdictional allegations) are all that are required to satisfy Form 18 and to state a claim of direct infringement.
See In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, 2012 WL

2044605, *7 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2012) ("whether [a complaint] adequately pleads direct infringement is to be measured by the specificity required by Form 18.")? Oracle particularly complains about the description of the accused infringing products. I believe Oracle's argument is insufficient since Form 18 uses as an example ofthe accused product "electric motors," which is analogous to "computer software." The plaintiff names specific products, and thus more than meets the requirements ofForm 18. The allegations are insufficient to state a claim for indirect infringement. See generally
id. There is no allegation stating that Oracle's customers directly infringe.3 See id. at *5. In

The Federal Circuit further comments, "It will not always be true that a complaint which contains just enough information to satisfy a governing form will be sufficient under Twombly ...." /d. at *7 n.6. Given the citations that follow in the footnote, I do not believe this is meant to be some sort of limitation on the holding in the text.
3

Stating Oracle's intent is not the same thing as stating what the customers did.

Case 1:11-cv-00825-RGA Document 172 Filed 07/02/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1934

\ ,

regards to contributory infringement, the allegations (other than as to knowledge, 4 see GlobalTech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S.Ct. 2060, 2068 (2011)) are wholly devoid of any

identifiable factual information. To the extent the allegations could be read to allege that Oracle induced acts that constituted patent infringement, see id at 2068-70, they are wholly unsupported by any factual allegation. Thus, the Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 96) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The claims of indirect infringement as to all patents are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The claims of direct infringement remain. The Motion for a More Definite Statement (D.I. 96), which is not briefed in any meaningful fashion, is DENIED.

I think that an allegation that a defendant was served with a complaint alleging patent infringement sufficiently alleges a factual basis that, beginning with the date that the complaint was served, the defendant knew of the patent. It does not provide any basis for knowledge predating such service.

Case 1:11-cv-00825-RGA Document 171 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1929

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IPLEARN LLC, Plaintiff, v. BEELINE ACQUISITION CORP., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 11-825-RGA

ORDER
Before the Court are two motions to sever. (D.I. 102 & 121). Plaintiff IpLearn, LLC filed its First Amended Complaint against nineteen defendants, alleging infringement ofnine patents. Not all defendants are accused of infringing all patents. The defendants Ultimate Software Group Inc. (D.I. 102) and Oracle Corporation (D.I. 121) each moved for severance. Three other defendants have joined in Oracle's motion to sever. (D.I. 141, 146 & 147). 1 Ultimate is alleged to infringe three ofthe asserted patents. Oracle is alleged to infringe all of them. The motions are fully briefed. The motions to sever (D.I. 102 & 121) will be GRANTED. The recent Federal Circuit authority, In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351 (2012), expressly states that "motions to sever are governed by Federal Circuit law," and implicitly holds that the issue of proper joinder is also governed by Federal Circuit law. Id at 1354 (''joinder in patent cases is based on an analysis of the accused acts of infringement, and this issue involves substantive issues unique to patent law."). While the exact extent ofthe Federal Circuit's ruling might be subject to debate (since These defendants are alleged to infringe two patents (Technomedia), three patents (Halogen), and four patents (Mzinga).
1

Case 1:11-cv-00825-RGA Document 171 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1930

the Court's holding was merely that the district court used an erroneous standard in evaluating a motion to sever, and the Court remanded for further proceedings using the correct standard), it seems clear to me that application of the standard set forth requires that severance be granted in this case. The Federal Circuit's standard is that defendants should not be "joined under Rule 20's transaction-or-occurrence test unless the facts underlying the claim of infringement asserted against each defendant share an aggregate of operative facts." !d. at 1359. Further, "joinder is not appropriate where different products or processes are involved." !d. And, "independently developed products using differently sourced parts are not part of the same transaction, even if they are otherwise coincidentally identical." !d. The plaintiff states that it opposes the motion to sever but does not oppose severance for trial. (D.I. 133, at 5). There is no allegation in the complaint that alleges any connection between Ultimate or Oracle and any other defendant, or between Ultimate's or Oracle's products and any other defendant's products. Therefore, I conclude that Ultimate and Oracle are improperly joined under EMC, and I will sever the cases against both of them. For the same reasons, I will also sever the cases against the defendants who have joined Oracle's motion, that is, Technomedia, Halogen, and Mzinga. There are further requests that the cases against all defendants other than Oracle be stayed. (E.g., D.I. 122, pp. 12-15; D.I. 139, pp. 9-10). While it may be the case that Oracle is the "lead defendant," and thus that litigation between the plaintiff and Oracle might simplify matters, it is also the case that the plaintiff has alleged wrongdoing by all the other defendants. I have granted severance because they are all independent actors with different interests. Whatever prospect that litigation against Oracle might simplify matters is simply outweighed by the

Case 1:11-cv-00825-RGA Document 171 Filed 07/02/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1931

plaintiff's reasonable interest in pursuing its rights against all the alleged wrongdoers. Thus, the request for a stay is DENIED. For all purposes other than trial, the cases against all defendants are CONSOLIDATED pursuant to Rule 42.