The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera N/A Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") filed by Defendants Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), Hewlett-Packard Company ("Hewlett-Packard"), Acer America Corporation ("Acer"), and Dell Inc. ("Dell"). (Dkt. 34). The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
The gravamen of the Consolidated Complaint filed by Plaintiff Proxyconn Inc. ("Plaintiff") is that each of four Defendants are directly and indirectly infringing Plaintiff's method patent.
a.The Court Consolidated Four Lawsuits
Plaintiff filed four separate complaints against four individual Defendants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Acer, and Dell. On January 3, 2012, the Court ordered all parties to show cause why these four cases should not be combined into one and stated that, if there were no objections, Plaintiff "shall file an Amended Complaint." See Order (Dkt. 9).
On January 17, 2012, the Court ordered that these four separate lawsuits be combined into one because no party objected to consolidation. See Order (Dkt. 14). As per the January 3, 2012, Order, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against all four Defendants. See Consolidated Compl. (Dkt. 23).
b.Allegations of Direct Patent Infringement
The Consolidated Complaint brings four "Counts" of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717 ("'717 Patent"); one count against each Defendant. The '717 Patent is attached to the complaint.
Each count has virtually identical language, with the only difference being the substitution of a different Defendant's name and different allegedly infringing technology, described as "personal computers" or "computer systems." Each count alleges that the individual Defendant:
. . . has been and still is directly . . . infringing at least claims 1, 10, 11 and 22 of the '717 patent . . . by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, without license or authority, [infringing technology] . . . .
See id. ¶¶ 15-16 (Microsoft), 21-23 (Hewlett-Packard), 29-30 (Acer), 35-37 (Dell).
Each count alleges that each Defendant's infringing technology "include[s]" computers using a method; the method's description parrots the description of Plaintiff's method patent. See id. Ex. A. Specifically, ...