DSM IP Assets, B.V. v. Honeywell Int'l

• Docket Number: Civil Action 23-675-WCB
• Decision Date: 02 November 2023
• Parties: DSM IP ASSETS, B.V.; DSM PURITY, B.V.; DSM BIOMEDICAL, B.V.; & DSM BIOMEDICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

1

DSM IP ASSETS, B.V.; DSM PURITY, B.V.; DSM BIOMEDICAL, B.V.; & DSM BIOMEDICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 23-675-WCB

United States District Court, D. Delaware

November 2, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM C. BRYSON, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Defendant Honeywell International, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss this patent infringement action brought by plaintiffs DSM IP Assets, B.V.; DSM Purity, B.V.; DSM Biomedical, B.V.; and DSM Biomedical, Inc. (collectively, “DSM”). The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. The '532 Patent

DSM Purity, B.V., is the record owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,280,532 (“the '532 patent”), which is titled “Colored Suture.”^[1] Although the specification refers to the invention as being related to colored medical sutures for use during surgery, the claims are not limited to that use. Instead, the claims are directed to a “colored multi-filament yarn comprising filaments that have been obtained by gel spinning a mixture containing ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene” (“UHMWPE”). Independent claim 1 of the patent recites that the mixture contains UHMWPE having “an intrinsic viscosity (IV) of between about 8 and 40 deciliters per gram, a spin solvent and a pigment.” The filaments consist of UHMWPE, “between 0.1 and 7.0 wt. % of an inorganic chromium oxide-containing pigment, a residual amount of spin solvent of less than about 500 ppm, and less than 1000 ppm of further constituents.” '532 patent, col. 6, line 67, through col. 7, line 5. The remaining eight claims all depend from claim 1 and recite different ranges in the percentage amounts of pigment (claims 2 and 3), a specific type of chromium oxide (claim 4), narrower ranges for the residual amounts of spin solvent (claims 5-7), a narrower range for the amount of further constituents (claim 8), and a specific range for the number of filaments constituting the multifilament yarn (claim 9).

B. The Complaint

In its complaint, DSM alleges that it makes and sells blue-colored, implantable sutures under the trademarks DYNEEMA PURITY VG and DYNEEMA PURITY TG. Complaint ¶ 14. According to DSM, the DYNEEMA PURITY products were the first commercially available blue medical grade UHMWPE fiber products. Id. ¶ 15. DSM alleges that the products can be used in implantable applications and that they offer both strength and superior contrast during arthroscopic surgeries, enabling surgeons to differentiate among multiple sutures and multiple anchors. Id. ¶ 16. DSM asserts that the products can be used alone or in combination with conventional suture materials. Id. ¶ 17.

With respect to its claim of direct infringement, DSM alleges the following in its complaint:

(1) Several years ago, Honeywell launched a line of medical grade ultra-high-strength ultra-lightweight polyethylene multi-filament products, which it sold under the trademark SPECTRA MG Bio; (2) All of Honeywell's SPECTRA MG Bio products are manufactured using a gelspinning process;

(3) Initially, Honeywell did not develop a blue-colored option in its line of SPECTRA MG Bio fiber products, but since at least April 12, 2022, it has advertised a line of blue-hued medical grade fiber products, including SPECTRA MG10 BIO Blue, SPECTRA MG13 BIO Blue, and SPECTRA MG21 Bio Blue (collectively, the “SPECTRA Blue products”) in the United States;

(4) On information and belief, Honeywell has made those products commercially available to customers since the third quarter of 2022;

(5) On information and belief, Honeywell knew of the '532 patent and incorporated the technology claimed in that patent in its SPECTRA Blue products;

(6) The SPECTRA MG10 BIO Blue and SPECTRA MG13 BIO Blue products are bluecolored yarn containing about 40 filaments of UHMWPE;

(7) The SPECTRA MG21 BIO Blue is a blue-colored yarn containing about 60 filaments of UHMWPE;

(8) On information and belief, the filaments in the SPECTRA BIO Blue products are manufactured by a gel-spinning process;^[2] (9) On information and belief, the gel-spinning process used to make the filaments in the SPECTRA Blue products includes gel-spinning UHMWPE and C.I. Pigment Blue 36 in a spin solvent;

(10) The SPECTRA Blue products exhibit characteristics substantially similar to the multi-filament yarns described in the '532 patent, including tenacity, modulus, elongation at break, and, on information and belief, an intrinsic viscosity between 840 deciliters per gram;

(11) C.I. Pigment Blue 36 is a blue pigment containing a mixed oxide of cobalt, aluminum, and chromium; on information and belief, DSM alleges that the filaments in the SPECTRA Blue products contain about 1-2% by weight of C.I. Pigment Blue;

(12) On information and belief, in light of the intended use of the Honeywell products in medical applications, the colored UHMWPE filaments in each SPECTRA Blue product are of high purity;

(13) On information and belief, each SPECTRA Blue product contains fewer than 60 parts per million of residual spin solvent and fewer than 1000 parts per million of other components;

(14) Based on those allegations, on information and belief the SPECTRA Blue products meet every limitation of claims 1-9 of the '532 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

Complaint ¶¶ 43-58. In addition, DSM alleges, on information and belief, that Honeywell makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell SPECTRA Blue products in the United States and imports SPECTRA Blue products into the United States. Id. ¶¶ 59-64.

With respect to its allegations of indirect and willful infringement, DSM alleges that Honeywell has been aware of the '532 patent since at least the date the complaint was filed and served on Honeywell and that Honeywell has actively encouraged others to make and use the SPECTRA Blue products in the United States, knowing that making and using the SPECTRA Blue products in the United States would infringe the '532 patent, and that Honeywell's encouragement has caused others to make and use the SPECTRA Blue products in the United States. Complaint ¶¶ 65-82.

II. Discussion

Citing the Supreme Court's opinions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), Honeywell argues that the complaint contains insufficient factual allegations regarding direct infringement, indirect infringement, and willful infringement, and that the complaint should be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

The now-familiar Supreme Court decisions in Twombly and Iqbal stand for the proposition that while a complaint is not required to contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must contain “more than an unadorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

A. Direct Infringement

With respect to direct infringement, DSM has alleged that Honeywell's SPECTRA Blue products infringe each of the asserted claims of the '532 patent, and it has done so with detailed allegations, not simply by setting forth the elements of direct infringement and then stating that Honeywell's product satisfies those requirements. Rather DSM's allegations provide a factual basis for its charge of infringement by specifically identifying the accused products and setting forth its infringement theory as to those products on a limitation-by-limitation basis. With respect to the limitations of claim 1, DSM alleges that Honeywell's SPECTRA MG BIO products are manufactured using a gel-spinning process, that those products have an intrinsic viscosity of between 8 and 40 deciliters per gram, that the components of the process of making the filaments include a spin solvent and a pigment, and that the filaments consist of UHMWPE between 0.7 and 7.0 % by weight of an inorganic Chromium oxide-containing pigment, a residual amount of spin solvent of less than about 500 parts per million, and less than 1000 parts per million of other components. DSM's allegations also cover most of the dependent claims, alleging that the SPECTRA MG Bio components fall within the concentration ranges set forth in each of those claims.^[3] On their face, those allegations are amply sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, as applied in Twombly, Iqbal, and their progeny. Although Honeywell points out that the complaint lacks “proofs” or “claim charts,” see Dkt. No. 14 at 4, 6, 8, Rule 8 imposes no such requirement. See Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A patentee need not “prove its case at the pleading stage.”) (quoting In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). What is required is that the complaint contain “well-pleaded factual allegations”; the court must “assume the[] veracity” of those allegations and then determine “whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests ....” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly). And as the Federal Circuit has explained, the principal objective of the complaint in a patent case is to...