United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: ECF No. 9
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
Before the court is Defendant CoAdna Photonic, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 9. The matter came for hearing on June 26, 2014.
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff JDS Uniphase Corporation ("Plaintiff") filed this action for two counts of direct patent infringement against Defendant on March 7, 2014. Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1. Defendant filed the instant motion on April 3, 2014. ECF No. 9.
B. Factual Allegations
The court accepts the following allegations as true for the purposes of resolving this Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. , 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff owns U.S. Patent No. 7, 162, 115 ("the 115 Patent"). Compl. ¶ 9. The 115 Patent was issued January 9, 2007. Id., Ex. 2. Titled "Multiport Wavelength-Selective Optical Switch, " the patent's twelve claims relate generally to optical switches for use in optical communications applications. Id.
Defendant CoAdna makes and sells optical communications and networking equipment. Id . ¶ 10. Specifically, CoAdna makes and sells products it refers to as its Wavelength Selective Switch ("WSS") products, including at least the 50GHz and 100GHz channel spacing models. Id . ¶ 11. The technology used in CoAdna's WSS products is sometimes referred to as CoAdna's Lightflow technology. Id . CoAdna's WSS products can be used in fixed and flexible grids. Id.
Regarding the 115 Patent, Plaintiffalleges that: (1) Defendant's WSS products embody and are covered by at least one claim of the patent; (2) Defendant has directly infringed and is directly infringing at least one claim of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States and/or importing into the United States its WSS products; (3) Defendant will continue to directly infringe the patent unless enjoined by the court; (4) Plaintiff has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's infringing activities; (5) Plaintiff will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendant's infringing activities and deserves an injunction; and (6) Defendant's infringement of the patent. Id . ¶¶ 20-25; see also ECF No. 28.
Plaintiff seeks a judgment that Defendant has infringed the 115 Patent, damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at pp. 4-5.
C. Legal Standard
On a motion to dismiss, courts accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "generally requires only a short and plain statement of the plaintiff's claim." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, "the tenet that a court must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plausibility does not mean probability, but it requires "more than a sheer possibility that a ...