Brice Envtl. Servs. Corp. v. Arcadis U.S., Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-CV-00141-JMK |
| Parties | BRICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CORPORATION, a Subsidiary of Claisa Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ARCADIS U.S., INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Pending before the Court is Defendant Arcadis U.S., Inc's (“Arcadis”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.[1] Plaintiff Brice Environmental Services Corporation (“Brice”) responded in opposition [2] and Arcadis filed a reply.[3] For the reasons set forth below Arcadis's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff Brice's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Brice is an environmental engineering, consulting and construction contractor.[4] Brice is involved in the design, development, and execution of environmental-service and construction projects, including large soil remediation projects, across the United States.[5] In 2004, Brice developed its own system and method for treating contaminated soil from a site.[6] Brice's system involves utilizing particle size separation and particle density separation in a system for removing, treating, and returning the treated soil back to the original site.[7] Brice applied for a patent in 2006.[8] On July 15, 2008, Brice was awarded a patent, issued as U.S. Patent No. 7, 255, 514 (the “ '141 Patent”).[9]
Arcadis is a competitor of Brice's within the market for environmental services, including soil remediation projects.[10] In May 2020, the United States Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (“ESTCP”), an environmental technology demonstration and validation program, announced award #ER20-5258 to Arcadis to demonstrate a soil-washing system for the treatment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl-contaminated soils at Eielson Airforce Base near Fairbanks, Alaska.[11] Arcadis's Soil-Washing System (the “Arcadis Soil-Washing System”) is a system developed by Clean Earth Technologies, Inc. (“CET”).[12] Based on conversations between counsel for Brice and counsel for CET, Brice understands that the Arcadis-Soil Washing System as sold is described in U.S. Patent Application No. US2020/0222953 (the “CET Patent Application”).[13] The Arcadis-Soil Washing System also was described in a proposal presented jointly by Arcadis and CET to the Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation on December 2, 2020 (the “ESTCP Presentation”).[14] Based on publicly available information, Brice alleges that the Arcadis Soil-Washing System directly and willfully infringes at least Claim 1 or Claim 20 of the '141 Patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents.[15]
Brice filed a Complaint against Arcadis on June 11, 2021.[16] On August 6, 2021, Arcadis filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.[17] On September 10, 2021, Brice filed its FAC, thereby mooting Arcadis's Motion to Dismiss.[18] Brice's FAC alleges a single claim for direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and seeks relief in the form of damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.[19]Brice's FAC includes the '141 Patent as an attachment.[20] By the present motion, Arcadis moves to dismiss Brice's FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.[21]
At the outset, the Court must address whether Arcadis's motion to dismiss should be converted into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d). When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “[o]rdinarily, a court may look only at the face of the complaint.”[22] Generally, if a court considers materials outside of the pleadings, the court must convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.[23] However, a court may “consider certain materials-documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice-without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”[24] Documents properly subject to the incorporation by reference doctrine are documents “whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiff's] pleading.”[25] Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court can judicially notice facts that are “generally known” within a court's territorial jurisdiction, or that can be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”[26] Appropriate subjects of judicial notice include facts contained in records of administrative bodies, press releases, a court's own records, and proceedings of other courts.[27]
Here, both parties have presented matters outside the pleadings. Arcadis attached to its motion to dismiss the following documents: (1) a declaration from the Senior Vice President of Research and Development at CET (the “Morrell Declaration”);[28](2) the ESTCP Presentation;[29] and (3) the CET Patent Application.[30] Brice, in turn, submitted with its opposition a declaration from its PFAS-Program Manager (the “Becker Declaration”).[31] Arcadis argues that the ESTCP Presentation and CET Patent Application may be considered on a motion to dismiss because (i) they are referenced in the complaint, (ii) they contradict allegations made in the complaint, [32] (iii) the court can judicially notice these exhibits; and (iv) the court may elect to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.[33] Arcadis offers no authority to support the propriety of the Court considering the Morrell Declaration at the motion to dismiss stage.[34] Likewise, Brice offers no legal authority to support the Court's consideration of the Becker Declaration on a 12(b)(6) motion.
The ESTCP Presentation and CET Patent Application are not proper subjects of judicial notice;[35] however, they both are frequently referenced in the FAC, and their authenticity is not questioned by either party.[36] The Court finds that these documents are incorporated by reference into the FAC and thus may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. By contrast, the Morrell and Becker Declarations are not referenced in the FAC. They also plainly are not proper subjects of judicial notice.[37] If the Court were to consider these declarations it would have to convert this motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The Court declines to do so in this instance.
Given the early stage of this case, the absence of discovery, the limited record before the Court, and the fact that only Brice has addressed the summary judgment standard in briefing, the Court finds that summary judgment is premature.[38] Accordingly, in deciding the present motion, the Court does not consider the content of the Morrell or Becker Declarations or the arguments that rely on these declarations. The Court does, however, consider the ESTCP Presentation and CET Patent application under the incorporation by reference doctrine.
Following the December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a majority of courts within the Ninth Circuit agree that Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer sets the pleading standard for allegations of direct patent infringement.[39] District courts now assess the sufficiency of claims for direct patent infringement under the standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.[40]
Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Under Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”[41] A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[42] If the facts alleged in the complaint do not support a reasonable inference of liability, stronger than a mere possibility, the claim must be dismissed.[43] A court assessing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion accepts as true all factual allegations alleged in the complaint, and construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.[44] The Court need not, however, accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”[45] Therefore, a “plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”[46]
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention within the United States . . . during the term of the patent . . . infringes the patent.” District courts within the Ninth Circuit have determined that a complaint must “contain factual allegations that the accused product practices every element of at least one exemplary claim.”[47] The “failure to meet a single [element] is sufficient to negate infringement of a claim.”[48]
The Federal Circuit recently has clarified the level of detail required to sufficiently state a claim for patent infringement. In Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, the Federal Circuit held that a “plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on an element- by-element basis.”[49]...
To continue reading
Request your trial