Witricity Corp. v. Momentum Dynamics Corp.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1671 |
| Parties | WITRICITY CORPORATION, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Auckland Uniservices, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
David Ellis Moore, Carla Michelle Jones, Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Adam R. Brausa, Pro Hac Vice, Christina M. Randall, Pro Hac Vice, Daralyn J. Durie, Pro Hac Vice, Jacob K. Baron, Pro Hac Vice, Kaveri Vaid, Pro Hac Vice, Taylor Han, Pro Hac Vice, for Plaintiffs WiTricity Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Auckland UniServices Limited.
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs WiTricity Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Auckland Uniservices, Ltd. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that Defendant Momentum Dynamics Corporation has infringed several of Plaintiffs’ patents involving technology for the wireless charging of electric vehicles. Defendant moves for partial dismissal of these claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) regarding two patents at issue, the ’701 patent-in-suit and the ’595 patent-in suit. For the following reasons, I will grant the Motion as to the ’701 patent-in-suit, but deny the Motion as to the ’595 patent-in-suit.
The following facts are set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.1
Plaintiff WiTricity Corporation ("WiTricity") was founded in 2007 based on new technology for wireless electricity transfer. The technology, invented and patented by a team of physicists from Plaintiff, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT"), is known as "highly resonant wireless power transfer," which enables transfer of power from one device to the other at high efficiency and over a distance range. This technology is the foundation for resonant-based systems for wireless charging of electric vehicles. (Compl. ¶ 18.)
From June 22, 2010 to September 19, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") issued numerous patents regarding this technology that are at issue in this case:
(collectively, the "patents-in-suit").2 WiTricity continues to develop and patent the core technology necessary for the wireless charging of electric vehicles and has acquired intellectual property building upon its foundational technology. WiTricity now controls over 1000 issued patents worldwide. (Id. ¶ 11–17, 19.)
Defendant Momentum Dynamics Corporation ("Momentum") develops wireless charging systems for the automotive and transportation industries in the United States. Momentum's website states that the "Momentum Charger is a modular platform technology capable of spanning across multiple vehicle types automatically and without a plug," describing its technology as an "automatic inductive charging system" and "high power inductive charging technologies." Momentum's website further explains that its technology is "based on the scientific principle of resonant magnetic induction." According to the Complaint, Momentum has installed or proposed to install its wireless electric vehicle charging systems on various public bus networks in Massachusetts, Tennessee, Washington, and Maryland. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 20, 21.)
On December 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed suit alleging direct and indirect infringement of the seven aforementioned patents-in-suit. On February 16, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss Count III of the Complaint (relating to the ’701 patent) and Count V of the Complaint (relating to the ’595 patent).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; see also Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quotations omitted). "[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" and "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "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." Id. A complaint does not show an entitlement to relief when the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct. Id.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has detailed a three-step process to determine whether a complaint meets the pleadings standard. Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012). First, the court outlines the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim for relief. Id. at 365. Next, the court must "peel away those allegations that are no more than conclusions and thus not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. Finally, the court "look[s] for well-pled factual allegations, assume[s] their veracity, and then ‘determine[s] whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’ " Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). The last step is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ).
Although the sufficiency of complaints involving claims of direct infringement were previously analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and the Appendix of Forms, those rules were abrogated effective December 1, 2015. Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., No. 15-cv-152, 2016 WL 927143, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016). It is now well established that both direct and indirect infringement claims are subject to the Twombly/ Iqbal standard. IP Commc'n Solutions, LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc., No. 16-cv-134, 2017 WL 1312942, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 5, 2017) ; RAH Color Techs. LLC v. Ricoh USA Inc., 194 F. Supp. 3d 346, 350–51 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
Regarding the ’701 patent, Defendant's Motion contends that it is not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, therefore, should be invalidated on the pleadings. Regarding the ’595 patent, Defendant presses that the Complaint fails to plausibly allege facts supporting a claim for infringement.
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The United States Supreme Court has held that this definition of patentable subject matter does not include laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014).
Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal issue. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010). Accordingly, the § 101 inquiry is properly raised at the pleadings stage if it is apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to eligible subject matter. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2621, 201 L.Ed.2d 1026 (2018) ; see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (), cert denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 911, 205 L.Ed.2d 454 (2020) ; Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 469 F. Supp. 3d 231, 236 (D. Del. 2020) ().
In Alice Corp. Proprietary Limited v. CLS Bank International, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step analysis for determining if a patent claims eligible subject matter. First, the court must decide whether the patent's claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible concept—i.e. , to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347. If the answer is no, then the patent is not invalid for...
To continue reading
Request your trial