Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

C.D. Cal.December 12, 2018

MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 Sarah S. Brooks VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 ssbrooks@venable.com Frank M. Gasparo (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Ralph A. Dengler (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Todd M. Nosher (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) VENABLE LLP 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 24th Floor New York, New York 10020 Telephone: (212) 307-5500 Facsimile: (212) 307-5598 fmgasparo@venable.com radengler@venable.com tmnosher@venable.com Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. MINDGEEK USA INC., MINDGEEK S.À.R.L., MG FREESITES LTD., MG FREESITES II LTD., MG CONTENT RK LTD., MG CONTENT DP LTD., MG CONTENT RT LTD., MG PREMIUM LTD., MG CONTENT SC LTD., MG CYPRUS LTD., LICENSING IP INTERNATIONAL S.À.R.L., 9219-1568 QUÉBEC INC. d/b/a MINDGEEK CANADA, and COLBETTE II LTD., Defendants. CASE No. 2:17-cv-08906 (Lead Case - Consolidated for All Purposes) Honorable David O. Carter NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Date of Hearing: January 7, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Courtroom: 9D Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:2509 -1- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 NOTICE OF MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 7, 2019 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard, Defendants MindGeek USA Inc.; MindGeek S.ar.l.; MG Content RK Ltd.; MG Content DP Ltd.; MG Premium Ltd.; and MG Cyprus Ltd., (collectively, “Defendants”) will and hereby respectfully move to dismiss Plaintiff Preservation Technologies LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 80-1) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s Complaints fail to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This Motion will be heard in the Courtroom of Judge David O. Carter for the United States District Court in the Central District of California. The Court is located at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom 9D, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities set forth below, the pleadings on file herein and upon such other matters as may be presented to the Court at the time of the hearing. This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on December 10, 2018. DATE: December 12, 2018 VENABLE, LLP By: /s/ Sarah S. Brooks Sarah S. Brooks Frank M. Gasparo (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Ralph A. Dengler (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Todd M. Nosher (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Defendants MindGeek USA Inc. et al. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:2510 -i- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 2 A. Procedural History ........................................................................... 2 B. Summary of Asserted Patents & Claims .......................................... 2 1. Cataloging Multimedia Data .................................................. 3 2. Query and Search Results Caching........................................ 3 3. Caching Video ....................................................................... 3 4. Cataloging and Surveying Data ............................................. 3 C. Summary of Accused Websites ....................................................... 3 D. Direct, Indirect, and Willful Allegations as to PornHub ................. 3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ......................................................................................... 4 A. Pleading Standards ........................................................................... 4 B. Pleading Direct Infringement in Patent Cases ................................. 5 C. Pleading Indirect Infringement in Patent Cases ............................... 6 D. Pleading Willfulness in Patent Cases ............................................... 8 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 8 A. The Counts as to the 53 Websites Should be Dismissed ................. 8 B. The TAC Contains No Plausible Allegations of Literal Infringement ..................................................................................... 9 1. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘014 Patent ........... 9 2. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘499 Patent ......... 11 3. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘080 Patent ......... 12 4. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘831 Patent ......... 12 5. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘495 Patent ......... 12 6. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘537 Patent ......... 13 7. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘060 Patent ......... 14 8. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘527 Patent ......... 14 9. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘911 Patent ......... 15 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:2511 -ii- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 10. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘071 Patent ......... 15 11. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘638 Patent ......... 16 C. No Plausible Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement ...................... 17 D. No Plausible Indirect Infringement by Inducement or Contributorily ................................................................................. 17 E. No Willful Infringement ................................................................ 20 F. The Case Should be Dismissed with Prejudice .............................. 21 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 22 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:2512 -iii- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter, 620 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7 Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc, 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 10, 14, 15 Apollo Fin., LLC v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 190 F. Supp 3d 939 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016)............................................................ 6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)............................................................................................... 4, 5 Atlas IP, LLC v. City of Naperville, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93541 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2016) ..................................... 6, 17 Atlas IP LLC v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) .......................................................... 16 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)............................................................................................... 4, 5 In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 7, 8, 17 Blantz v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 727 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................... 5 Cap Co., Ltd. v. McAfee, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83522 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) .................................... 7, 8 Carroll Shelby Wheel Co. v. Shelby Trust, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215045 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017) ..................................... 21 Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................... 4 Discflo Corp. v. Am. Process Equip. Inc., 2011 WL 6888542 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) ......................................................... 20 DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) ............................................................... 17 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:2513 -iv- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111689 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) .................................. 5, 6 EnLink Geoenergy Servs., Inc. v. Jackson & Sons Drilling & Pump, Inc., 2010 WL 1221861 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2010) ........................................................ 20 Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011)................................................................................................... 6 Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ............................................................................................... 8 Hand Held Prods., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2013 WL 507149 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2013) ................................................................. 20 ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 2007 Dist. LEXIS 34467 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007) ............................................... 21 Injen Tech. Co. v. AF Dynamic, No. 2:18-cv-05910, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018) ............................................. 5 Kane v. Delong, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38127 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) ...................................... 20 Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2014) ....................................................... 6, 17 Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................... 5 Medsquire LLC v. Spring Med. Sys. Inc., 2011 WL 4101093 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011) ........................................................ 16 Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 4 Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Xerox Corp., 2018 WL 1400426 (D. Neb. Mar. 20, 2018) ............................................................. 6 North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Kingston Tech. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106018 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2018) ..................................... 5, 9 Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC, 2017 WL 2311407 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017)........................................................... 9 Raindance Tech., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., 2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ................................................................ 17 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:2514 -v- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 Simpson Performance Prods. v. NecksGen Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83555 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) ................................... 8, 21 Solis v. City of Fresno, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33548 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) ................................... 5, 18 Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42466 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2014) ........................................... 19 Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., 2013 WL 5770542 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) ..................................................... 7, 19 TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 17 Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28337 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2014) ...................................... 18, 19 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2018 WL 2047553 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018) ........................................................... 17 Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151761 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) .................................. 7, 19 Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) .......................................................................................................... 5 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c) ............................................................................................ 6 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)-(c) & (f) ......................................................................................... 20 35 U.S.C. §271(f) .......................................................................................................... 18 Other Authorities Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and 11(c)(2) ....................................................................................... 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ..................................................................................................... 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ...................................................................................................... 1, 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 1, 2 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:2515 -1- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendants MindGeek USA Inc.; MindGeek S.ar.l.; MG Content RK Ltd.; MG Content DP Ltd.; MG Premium Ltd.; and MG Cyprus Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”)1 move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff Preservation Technologies LLC’s (“PT”) Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 80-1, hereafter “TAC”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. PT’s burden is to put Defendants on fair notice of what in each accused website allegedly infringes the patents-in-suit. This is reasonable-and required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11-because PT is expected to conduct the necessary pre-suit diligence before suing. PT cannot sue and then wait for discovery to formulate its case in the first instance. PT has accused over fifty-three websites of infringing eleven expired patents, at least 8 of which expired well over two years ago. Tellingly, PT fit into less than thirty pages of its 203 page TAC its entire infringement argument. But PT has set forth insufficient factual details as to only one website, www.pornhub.com (hereafter, “PornHub”), and fails to address every limitation of each of the claims asserted as to it. And PT fails to set forth any factual details as to the other accused websites. The TAC is facially deficient as to literal infringement, and does not even mention doctrine of equivalents, other than in its “Prayer for Relief.”2 PT’s pleading of indirect and willful infringement also fails, comprised of minimal and conclusory allegations about inducement and contributory infringement, and willfulness. The threadbare TAC fails to meet the pleading standard of Twombly/Iqbal and should be dismissed with prejudice. Here, because PT has failed three times to make a plausible infringement case, this consolidated action should be dismissed with prejudice. 1 The other entities named in the case caption have not yet been served. 2 The significant burden of discovery for each of the accused websites-including collecting technical documents and source code-should not be borne until PT has demonstrated that there is a plausible case of infringement for each accused website. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:2516 -2- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Procedural History. PT is a patent assertion entity that first sued MindGeek USA, Inc. (“MindGeek”) nearly four years ago alleging infringement of the same eleven patents. Dkt. No. 1 in 14-cv-1292 (D. Del.). PT voluntarily and inexplicably dismissed that action without prejudice within months of filing. MindGeek understood PT’s dismissal to be a direct result of the defenses it had articulated to PT, and its refusal to succumb to PT’s attempted shakedown. PT remained silent for over three years until filing a new litigation on December 11, 2017 reasserting its prior infringement claims, and then filing a related action on April 11, 2018 in 18-cv-03058.3 Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on patent ineligibility (Dkt. No. 40), prompting PT to file on August 27, 2018 its First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” Dkt. Nos. 44-45). After the parties met and conferred about the FAC, the Court granted the parties Stipulation permitting PT to amend its FAC (Dkt. No. 62), which PT filed on October 15, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 63-64). Defendants next notified PT of pleading deficiencies in its Second Amended Complaint, upon which PT sought and received Defendants’ consent to amend the complaint for a third time. Dkt. No. 69. On November 19, 2018, PT filed a motion to amend its complaint (Dkt. No. 80), which the Court granted on November 27, 2018 (Dkt. No. 85). B. Summary of Asserted Patents & Claims. PT alleges that Defendants infringe eleven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,813,014 (“the ‘014 patent”); 5,832,495 (“the ‘495 patent”); 5,832,499 (“the ‘499 patent”); 6,092,080 (“the ‘080 patent”); 6,199,060 (“the ‘060 patent”); 6,212,527 (“the ‘527 patent”); 6,353,831 (“the ‘831 patent”); 6,477,537 (“the ‘537 patent”); 6,549,911 (“the ‘911 patent”); 6,574,638 (“the ‘638 patent”); and 6,581,071 (“the ‘071 patent”). 3 The cases were consolidated, and all docket citations refer to 17-cv-08906. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:2517 -3- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 TAC, ¶¶ 51-61, 216-304. Defendants group the asserted patents as follows (see also Appendices B and C): 1. Cataloging Multimedia Data. The ‘495; ‘527; and ‘911 patents are entitled “Method and Apparatus for Cataloging Multimedia Data” and generally relate to cataloging, storing portions of data, and creating relationships of multimedia data. Id. ¶¶55, 58-59. 2. Query and Search Results Caching. The ‘014; ‘060; and ‘537 patents are entitled “Method and Apparatus for Management of Multimedia Assets” and generally relate to providing search requests using a protocol and storing the results or search history for reuse. Id. ¶¶51, 56-57.Caching Video. The ‘499; ‘080; and ‘831 patents are entitled “Digital Library System” and generally relate to caching data to remote and local caches. Id. ¶¶52-54. 4. Cataloging and Surveying Data. The ‘071 and ‘638 patents are entitled “Surveying System and Method” and “Method and Apparatus for Cataloging Multimedia Data Using Surveying Data,” respectively, and generally relate to providing survey questions, storing responses to questions, and associating survey data with multimedia data. Id. ¶¶60-61. C. Summary of Accused Websites. Defendants allege infringement of fifty-three websites, as well as “all premium versions and domains” of them. TAC, ¶ 160; Appendix B hereto (listing accused websites). However, PT only attempts to plead infringement as to one of these websites, PornHub. TAC, ¶¶217, 225, 233, 241, 249, 257, 265, 273, 282, 290, 298. D. Direct, Indirect, and Willful Allegations as to PornHub. For direct infringement, PT’s allegations as to PornHub are deficient nonetheless. PT relies on a sparse smattering of website images and webpage HTML/JavaScript code (from PornHub only), random packet capture and/or boilerplate statements for certain limitations. TAC, ¶¶ 217-304. And, PT pleads numerous allegations on “information and belief,” i.e., PT has no facts supporting its “beliefs.” Id. ¶¶165, 173, 178, 202-207, Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:2518 -4- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 217, 221, 225, 229, 233, 237, 241, 245, 253, 261, 269, 278, 286, 294, 302. PT also repeatedly conceded for each patent that, “Not all infringing features of the Accused Websites are addressed, nor are all infringing features of the Accused Websites mapped to elements of the claims.” Id. ¶¶217, 225, 233, 241, 249, 257, 265, 274, 282, 290, 298. The indirect and willful infringement allegations are also thin. PT largely parrots the same conclusory allegations of indirect infringement based on providing instructions, software and subscriptions (id. ¶¶ 184, 198-199, 202-203), but without demonstrating that the actions performed induced or contributed to infringement. The willfulness allegations are equally conclusory (id. ¶¶ 208-214, 221-222, 229-230, 237- 238, 245-246, 253-254, 261-262, 269-270, 278-279, 286-287, 294-295, 302-303), and fail to address that PT dismissed its original 2014 case, allowed Defendants to continue operating, and then reappeared in 2017 alleging willful infringement. LEGAL AUTHORITY A. Pleading Standards A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotations and citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not required, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations and citations omitted). While a court considering a motion to dismiss may consider all material allegations in the complaint as true, a court should not consider conclusory statements, legal conclusions, and “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). The court should also not “indulge unwarranted inferences in order to save a complaint from dismissal.” Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:2519 -5- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 And pleading core elements of a claim based on “information and belief,” without supporting factual allegations, does not satisfy the exacting standard of Twombly and Iqbal. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 551, 564-70 (dismissing conspiracy allegations made on “information and belief”); Blantz v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 727 F.3d 917, 927 (9th Cir. 2013); Solis v. City of Fresno, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33548 at *22 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) (“In the post-Twombly and Iqbal era, pleading on information and belief, without more, is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”) (citation omitted). Typically, “the scope of review on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is limited to the contents of the complaint,” with certain allowances. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). B. Pleading Direct Infringement in Patent Cases The Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards apply in pleading direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Kingston Tech. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106018, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2018) (citation omitted). To state a claim for direct infringement, a Plaintiff must plead sufficient factual grounds for the Court to make a plausible inference that each accused product meets each limitation- not just some-of at least one claim of the asserted patents. To adequately allege direct infringement, a Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to permit the Court to infer that the accused product infringes each element of at least one claim. . . . But because the failure to meet any one limitation of [a] claim is sufficient to negate infringement, Plaintiff must allege that each limitation of [the] claim is met in order to establish a plausible claim for relief. North Star, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106018, at *2-3, 7 (citations omitted; emphasis in original); e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111689, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (because the “the FAC does not allege any facts suggesting that the accused products practice . . . [a certain limitation] . . . the Court concludes that the FAC fails to state a claim.”) (footnote omitted); see also Injen Tech. Co. v. AF Dynamic, No. 2:18-cv-05910, slip op. at 3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018) (dismissing pleading because “A plaintiff cannot simply identify some products and recite the Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:2520 -6- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 elements of patent infringement, absent any factual support, to state a plausible claim to relief.”). The requirement of a plausible pleading should not impose an undue burden on most plaintiffs because a patentee is already required to perform an adequate pre- filing investigation before bringing suit. e.Digital Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111689, at *10 n.2. Finally, a Plaintiff has to come forward with sufficient factual details if pleading infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Apollo Fin., LLC v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 190 F. Supp 3d 939, 943 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss because plaintiff “does not state a plausible claim for patent infringement by simply identifying the allegedly infringing products and reciting the elements of patent infringement claim in a conclusory fashion, absent any factual support.”); Atlas IP, LLC v. City of Naperville, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93541, at *8 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2016) (“The complaint fails to allege how the accused products practice, or contain an equivalent of, each limitation of representative claim 1.”); Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 804 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2014) (granting motion to dismiss because unclear “what [was] alleged to be literally infringed and what [was] alleged to be infringed by equivalents.”); Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Xerox Corp., 2018 WL 1400426, at *4 (D. Neb. Mar. 20, 2018) (“The technical and factual nature of an infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents requires some level of specificity beyond a one-sentence accusation.”). C. Pleading Indirect Infringement in Patent Cases Both induced and contributory infringement, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c) require knowledge of the patent in question, and knowledge that the actions performed induced or contributed to infringement of that patent. Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 764-66 (2011). The Twombly/ Iqbal pleading standards apply to indirect allegations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c). “Simply repeating the legal conclusion that Defendants induced infringement or contributorily infringed does not plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:2521 -7- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter, 620 F. App’x 934, 938 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint “must contain facts plausibly showing that [a defendant] specifically intended [another party] to infringe [the patent] and knew that the [third party’s] acts constituted infringement.” In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A patentee’s unsupported allegations or “passing references to user manuals, guides, and support articles, without ever saying what those materials contain . . . is wholly inadequate for an inference of specific intent.” Cap Co., Ltd. v. McAfee, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83522, at *16 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) (quotations omitted); Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., 2013 WL 5770542, at *15-16 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (finding induced infringement allegations by defendant’s instructions were insufficient because plaintiff failed to “[plead] facts as to how [d]efendant’s . . . instruction [was] meant to induce or encourage [the direct infringers]”) (citation omitted); Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151761 at *8 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) (“these allegations also fail because they merely indicate that Defendant provides instruction, technical support, and training for using its own software, and nothing more. As such, Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and not sufficient to plausibly infer that Defendant had the specific intent to induce others to infringe.”). Instead, the plaintiff must at least “cite examples where the accused infringer advertised benefits that can be achieved only through use of the asserted patent.” Cap Co., Ltd, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83522, at *15. To state a claim for contributory infringement under § 271(c), the plaintiff must plead facts showing that: (1) a defendant sells a material or apparatus for use in practicing the asserted patent; (2) “[t]hat material or apparatus must be a material part of the invention;” (3) that material or apparatus must “have no substantial noninfringing uses;” and (4) that material or apparatus must “be known (by the party) to be especially Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:2522 -8- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent.” Id. at *17; In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1337. D. Pleading Willfulness in Patent Cases “Consistent with nearly two centuries of enhanced damages under patent law . . . such punishment should generally be reserved for egregious cases typified by willful misconduct.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1934 (2016). “To establish willful infringement, a patentee must plead that the infringer was aware of the asserted patent, but nonetheless acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” Simpson Performance Prods. v. NecksGen Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83555, at *9 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) (citations and quotations omitted). A complaint is “deficient . . . [if] it fails to plausibly allege an inference that Defendant engaged in egregious conduct.” Id. at *11 (citations omitted). ARGUMENT A. The Counts as to the 53 Websites Should be Dismissed Defendants still have insufficient notice as to how or why each of the accused 53 websites allegedly infringe. This is even more acute given that PT has charged “the entire software and hardware base supporting the Accused Websites,” including: servers; search and indexing functionality; CDN and Video management subsystems; indexes; browser, data structure schemas; data structures; user and operator interfaces for the website and loading of content into the system; systems that manage the content and data structures used by the website functionality; systems that manage or send instructions pertaining to storage of videos and CDNs (including without limitation software interfaces and protocols); systems that query the indexes and data structures; systems that manage relationships of items within data structures; indexing and cataloguing of data used by the system; the software and hardware architecture as a whole; caching, management and storage of videos, queries, and search results; transmission of video; storage of data for analytics; ratings and surveys of customers; serving of advertisements; rendering of video in the browser window; all internal and external user and command interfaces; multimedia interfaces and protocols for search and transmission of video; all APIs, protocols, and messaging between components and subsystems; commands, operator and user instructions and software interfaces between systems; all software Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:2523 -9- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 pertaining to navigation and functionality of the website; archiving of videos and multimedia data; indexing servers and systems; and video player and software that interacts with the player. TAC, ¶ 215. A complaint making conclusory assertions that the accused products meet each claim limitation, without providing factual allegations as to features or components of the products relative to limitations of the claim, must be dismissed. Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC, 2017 WL 2311407, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017). To the extent PT argues that the allegations as to PornHub can or should be replicated to the other websites, this is insufficient-it would require the Court to assume plausibility, which is improper. North Star, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189624, at *6-8 (“If a Plaintiff does not . . . [allege sufficient factual details] how can the Court conclude that it is plausible that the claim limitations are met by the accused product? The Court would basically just have to take Plaintiff’s word for it, or assume that Plaintiff must have a good answer that it will later share when it deems the time to be right. That is not what the Twombly/lqbal standard requires.”). B. The TAC Contains No Plausible Allegations of Literal Infringement 1. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘014 Patent. PT alleges that PornHub directly infringes independent claim 21 of the ‘014 Patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶217). PT makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems,” and parses the claim, ignoring several claim limitations. For the claim limitation, “computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to specify a search request,” PT states that “Defendants’ Accused Websites allow its users to specify a search requests as depicted.” TAC, ¶ 217 (emphasis added) (relying on “Jenna Jameson” search request entered by a user). But, there is no evidence that Defendants themselves via a computer “specify a search request,” as opposed to a user who is a separate entity. Moreover, if a user is specifying the “search requests,” it is not clear how there can be “computer readable program code” to do so. Thus, there Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:2524 -10- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 cannot be any plausible direct infringement of the ‘014 patent by the Defendants. To the extent PT argues there is joint infringement between Defendants and its users, PT has not plead such joint infringement allegations under the requisite legal standard. E.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc, 797 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard for joint infringement). The TAC is further lacking because it does not plead sufficient evidence regarding the claim limitation “said plurality of catalogue elements associated with a plurality of keywords of said catalogue, said plurality of keywords identifying said multimedia data, said plurality of keywords being interrelated by one or more of associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships.” TAC, ¶134. PT states that: A ‘catalogue element’ refers to a data structure about a specific data type (types, keywords, persons, segments etc.) . . . . ‘014 Patent, 8:10-35; See Fig. 4A. An attribute is contained within the catalogue element and contains information about the given catalogue element. Id. . . . Typical attributes include segment references . . . keyword references and other associations. TAC, ¶96; see also id. ¶95 (providing a Figure outlining the alleged “catalogue elements”). PT also states that, “it contains unconventional self-referential relationships (e.g. pointers or references) to other catalogue elements so that more efficient retrieval and the reduction of data structures could be had. Generally, the system employed three kinds of relationships: associative; whole-part and inheritance relationships. ‘495 Patent, 13:48-62.” TAC, ¶¶99-103; Dkt. No. 89, Appendices C-D (linking the above to the ‘014 Patent); TAC, ¶102 (stating that the “associative; whole-part and inheritance relationships” refers to “self-references between keywords within the keyword catalogue element”). Accepting PT’s allegations for “catalogue elements” and “self-referential relationships” as true and as required in a 12(b)(6) motion, PT has not alleged with evidence: (1) a plurality of catalogue elements (data structures); (2) that they are associated with a plurality of keywords of said catalogue (data structures housing keywords); and (3) said plurality of keywords being interrelated by one or more of Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 17 of 33 Page ID #:2525 -11- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships (“self-references between keywords within the keyword catalogue element”). Instead, PT alleges one data structure on “information and belief” (TAC, ¶ 217) but does not state that there are keywords housed inside and does not state with any evidence that the “keywords” are “self-referential” with associative, whole-part, or inheritance relationships. 2. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘499 Patent. PT alleges that PornHub directly infringes independent claim 16 of the ‘499 Patent “by making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶217). PT makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems,” and again parses the claim while ignoring several claim limitations. Similar to the deficiencies in claim 21 of the ‘014 patent above, here the TAC does not plead sufficient evidence regarding the claim limitation “said multimedia data comprising at least one catalogue element associated with a plurality of keywords of said catalogue, said plurality of keywords identifying said portion of said multimedia data, said plurality of keywords being interrelated by one or more of associative, whole- part and inheritance relationships.” For the claim limitation, “computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to retrieve said portion of multimedia data . . .,” PT states “Upon information and belief [that] Defendants and third party CDNs employ multiple caches and other memory and/or storage….” TAC, ¶225. However, the TAC refers to an “archive server” that: maintains an identification of the location of the multimedia data. Thus, when a set of catalogue elements is received from the browser, the archive server can identify the location of the portions of multimedia data having the desired content (i.e., the portions of multimedia data associated with the catalogue elements 10 contained in the set). TAC, ¶120. PT fails to allege the archive server functionality as to Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 18 of 33 Page ID #:2526 -12- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 3. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘080 Patent. PT alleges that PornHub directly infringes dependent claim 2 of the ‘080 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶233). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” PT then glosses over the “access management system” limitation, which “is coupled to said cataloguing system” (emphasis added). PT conclusorily alleges that “Defendants’ websites provide access through a variety of devices and browsers such as tablets and mobile devices such as iOS and Android powered devices that are operatively connected to index servers, API interfaces and other multimedia components.” Id. However, the specification of the ‘080 patent repeatedly refers to “an asset management system” that “includes search tools to query the catalogue to identify a set of catalogue elements having attributes that satisfy a search criteria.” ‘080 patent, col. 4, ll. 61-63. 4. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘831 Patent. PT alleges that PornHub directly infringes dependent claim 6 of the ‘831 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶233). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” PT states that “At least one of the data structure used by the indexing server containing descriptive information and tags associated with the multimedia portion depicted above and below, among other things, may meet this catalogue limitation.” TAC, ¶241. But PT fails to provide any factual information about the data structure. 5. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘495 Patent. PT alleges that PornHub directly infringes independent claim 13 of the ‘495 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:2527 -13- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 (TAC, ¶249). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” As to the limitation “a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein for cataloguing multimedia data using a general indexing structure,” PT again makes the conclusory statement that “At least one of the data structures containing descriptive information and tags associated with the multimedia portion, among other things, may meet this catalogue limitation, as depicted below” (TAC, ¶249), but fails to provide any factual information about the data structure. Similarly, as to the limitation “computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to specify a description for a portion of said multimedia data,” PT again concludes that “At least one of the data structures containing descriptive information and tags associated with the multimedia portion, among other things, may meet this catalogue limitation, as depicted above below” (id), but without evidence. And similar to the deficiencies in claim 21 of the ‘014 patent and claim 16 of the ‘499 patent, here the TAC does not plead sufficient evidence regarding the claim limitation “catalogue comprising a plurality of elements and relationships between said plurality of elements, said plurality of elements identifying data associated with said multimedia data, said data including keywords interrelated via one or more associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships, and other multimedia data associated with said multimedia data. 6. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘537 Patent. PT further alleges that PornHub directly infringes dependent claims 31 and 32 of the ‘537 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶257). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 20 of 33 Page ID #:2528 -14- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 For the claim limitation “an API [application program interface] protocol means . . .” (independent claim 1) and “where the first system component comprises a browser and said at least one additional system component comprises an indexing server” (claim 31), PT states “Defendants’ system that are being interfaced . . . are a browser and an indexing server.” (TAC, ¶257). And for the claim 32 limitation, “The API protocol means of claim 31 wherein said multimedia data comprises testimony . . .,” PT states that the limitation “testimonies” is met by “videos” of a person keyword using the catalogue, but provides no support for this conclusion. Id. 7. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘060 Patent. PT further alleges that PornHub directly infringes dependent claim 16 of the ‘060 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶265). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” And similar to the ‘014 patent above, for the ‘060 patent, claim 15 limitation, “computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to communicate between at least two of said components using said generalized protocol,” PT states that “a user initiates a routine of the API to retrieve the claimed data about multimedia as depicted above.” TAC, ¶265 (emphasis added). But, there is no evidence that Defendants themselves via a computer “initiates a routine,” as opposed to a user who is a separate entity. Moreover, if a user is specifying the “routine,” it is not clear how there can be “computer readable program code” to do so. And, to the extent PT argues there is joint infringement between Defendants and its users, PT has not plead such joint infringement allegations under the requisite legal standard and specifically how it would fix the above deficiencies. E.g., Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1022-23. 8. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘527 Patent. PT further alleges that PornHub directly infringes dependent claim 15 of the ‘527 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 21 of 33 Page ID #:2529 -15- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶273). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” For the claim limitation, “creating alternate expressions of content of a multimedia data catalogue” comprised of first and second catalog elements (independent claim 14), and the “second catalogue element is a thesaural keyword” (TAC, ¶273), PT makes the conclusory assertion that “Defendants’ websites associate multimedia data using thesaural keyword associations.” Id. 9. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘911 Patent. PT further alleges that PornHub directly infringes independent claim 14 of the ‘911 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶282). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” As to the limitation “computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to specify a description for a portion of said multimedia data” PT alleges that “Defendants’ prompt its end users to provide tags for clips of multimedia. Defendants’ Websites may also assign tags to portions of multimedia.” (TAC, ¶282). PT’s assertion implicates an end user, again without pleading joint infringement, and there is no evidence that Defendants themselves via a computer “assign tags to portions of multimedia.” as opposed to a user who is a separate entity. Moreover, if a user is assigning the tag, it is not clear how there can be “computer readable program code” to do so, as called for in the claim. 10. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘071 Patent. PT further alleges that PornHub directly infringes independent claim 9 of the ’071 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 22 of 33 Page ID #:2530 -16- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 CDNs.” (TAC, ¶290). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” As to the claim limitation “survey information,” PT equates the “comment section” of the PornHub webpage to a survey (TAC, ¶290). PT provides no support for this lexicographic stretch, and the ‘071 patent specification does not support it either. 11. No Plausible Literal Infringement of the ‘638 Patent. PT further alleges that PornHub directly infringes dependent claim 7 of the ‘638 patent by “making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs.” (TAC, ¶298). PT again makes no factual assertions about “third party Accused Systems.” As to the “surveying data” limitation of independent claim 1, PT again alleges without evidence that PornHub “associate[s] multimedia data with survey data comprising obtaining an association between the data, searching the survey data to identify a catalogue element, and identifying multimedia data using the catalogue element.” (TAC, ¶298). PT further concludes, again without support, that this “survey data” equates to “video comments, title, categories, production, tags, date added, and date featured for a specific multimedia clip” done by end users. And PT’s assertion again implicates an end user, without alleging joint infringement. The foregoing summary demonstrates that the TAC is facially deficient. See Medsquire LLC v. Spring Med. Sys. Inc., 2011 WL 4101093, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011) (bare allegation that defendant infringed “by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale its [product], which embodies and/or otherwise practices one or more claims” of the patent failed the Iqbal-Twombly standard); see also Atlas IP LLC v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 2016 WL 1719545, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (dismissing allegations of direct infringement where complaint recites only some of the elements of the asserted claim). Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 23 of 33 Page ID #:2531 -17- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 C. No Plausible Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement PT makes no attempt to articulate infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (“DoE”), either under the function-way-result test, or insubstantial difference test. TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008). PT makes only a passing reference in its the “Prayer for Relief” to “[e]nter judgment that Defendants directly infringe, contribute to infringement, or induce others to infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.” TAC, p. 200 (emphasis added). However, this is not a pleading, but a prayer, with no facts applied to the well-settled DoE law. DoE should be dismissed from the case. Atlas IP, LLC v. City of Naperville, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93541, at *8 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2016); Macronix Int’l. Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 804 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2014); Raindance Tech., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., 2016 WL 927143, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss where there was “nothing in the complaint . . . that hints at the role of [a claim element] in Defendant’s [explicitly identified] products.”). D. No Plausible Indirect Infringement by Inducement or Contributorily To plead inducement under 271(b), a plaintiff must show sufficient facts that “the alleged infringer . . . possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement.” DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted) (en banc). To state a claim for contributory infringement under 271(c), a plaintiff must, among other things, plead facts that allow an inference that the products sold or offered for sale have no substantial non-infringing uses. In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1337; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2018 WL 2047553 at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018) (“contributory infringement requires knowledge of the patent Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 24 of 33 Page ID #:2532 -18- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 in suit and knowledge of patent infringement”) (citation omitted). The TAC is bereft of details to support these indirect infringement claims.4 See TAC, ¶¶ 182-207. PT’s scattershot and conclusory predicates to inducement, mostly “Upon information and belief,” include that: Defendants “provid[e] corporate instruction, direction, capital, technical knowhow or expertise, content, domain names, trademarks, advertising, legal defense, capital, software, employees and advertising sales that facilitate the operation of the Accused Websites in conducting infringing activity” (Id. ¶ 184); “[b]oth the software made available at Defendants’ websites and instructions provided by Defendants induce users and third-parties to use an infringing system and method, and the third-parties do in fact infringe” (Id. ¶ 198); “Defendants provide software instructions sent to third-parties that put into use the third-parties’ players, CDNs and other systems” (Id. ¶ 200); “Defendants provide customers and/or other third-parties instructions, materials, advertisements, services, encouragement, and software to use, load, and/or operate the Accused Systems…” (Id. ¶ 202); and Defendants “provide instructions to customers, software and third-parties to operate the Accused Systems…”) (Id. ¶ 203). Putting aside the “Upon information and belief” infirmity (see Soli, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33548 at *22, these generalizations are the only allegations addressing Defendants’ purported state of mind. Such conclusory allegations without details fall well short of the pleading threshold for induced infringement. See Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28337, at *13-14 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2014) (“In light of the lack of facts pled linking up any ‘instructions’ with conduct plausibly asserted to amount to direct infringement, the allegations as to this element, then, are insufficient as well.”). PT also does not sufficiently plead how the unidentified end users and/or third-party CDNs directly infringe any of the asserted patents, instead parroting the statutory language without providing specific details about the alleged 4 PT includes a passing reference to infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f) (see TAC, ¶¶ 218, 226, 234, 242, 250, 258, 266, 275, 283, 291 and 299, but provides no explanation or facts whatsoever in support. That §271(f) allegation, just as the DoE Prayer, should be dismissed. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 25 of 33 Page ID #:2533 -19- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 direct infringement by such users. This does not suffice. Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., 2013 WL 5770542, at *15-16 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (finding the allegation that defendant induced infringement “by dictating by its . . . instructions to users thereto the manner in which the software is used causing such infringement” was insufficient, as PT failed to “[plead] facts as to how [d]efendant’s ... instruction [was] meant to induce or encourage” the direct infringers) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151761 at *7- 14 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013); Trans Video, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28337, at *13-14 (“bare reference to ‘instructions . . . on how to use the accused product in such a way that infringes’ is a nullity. And because the content of those ‘instructions’ is not further set out in the Complaint, their content cannot be relied upon to help fill in the blanks”) (citation omitted). For contributory infringement, PT alleges that “Upon information and belief, the Accused Systems have no substantial non-infringing use and are especially made and/or adapted so as to infringe the Asserted Patents;” (TAC, ¶ 206), and that “Upon information and belief, Defendants know their systems, articles and services are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the Asserted Patents and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non- infringing use.” E.g., id. ¶207. Such barebones 271(c) pleadings are facially deficient and merely “parrot the language of the necessary elements to support a contributing infringement claim.” See Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42466, at *9-10 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2014) (dismissing patentee’s claims of contributory infringements for simply “parroting” the statutory language of contributory infringement failing to state sufficient facts that raise the plausible inference of the same). The TAC then repeats in its Counts for each asserted patent that Defendants indirectly infringe the [ ] Patent by inducing or contributing to the infringement of the [ ] Patent, including but not limited to infringement by customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)-(c) & (f). To the extent that defendants are not directly liable for infringement of the [ ] Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 26 of 33 Page ID #:2534 -20- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 Patent, they collectively and individually induce and contribute to the operation of the Accused Websites to infringe the [ ] Patent. See TAC, ¶218 (‘014 patent); ¶226 (‘499 patent); ¶234 (‘080 patent); ¶242 (‘831 patent); ¶250 (‘495 patent); ¶258 (‘537 patent); ¶266 (‘060 patent); ¶275 (‘527 patent); ¶283 (‘911 patent); ¶291 (‘071 patent); and ¶299 (‘638 patent). These mere conclusions are devoid of facts and should be dismissed. See EnLink Geoenergy Servs., Inc. v. Jackson & Sons Drilling & Pump, Inc., 2010 WL 1221861, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2010) (dismissing indirect infringement claims where the “complaint merely repeats the exact language from the statute without adding any factual allegations”); Discflo Corp. v. Am. Process Equip. Inc., 2011 WL 6888542 at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) (holding that barebones pleading fails to state a claim of indirect infringement where plaintiff simply alleged that “[d]efendants are inducing and/or contributing to the infringement … by selling pump products to others”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Hand Held Prods., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2013 WL 507149, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2013) (contributory infringement pleading must aver that an alleged infringer “knew of the patented invention [and] knew the part was made for, or adapted to use, in a patented invention, and … has no substantial non-infringing use.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, PT’s claims of violations of 35 U.S.C. §§271(b)-(c) and (f) should be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law. E. No Willful Infringement PT’s dismissal of its 2014 case, followed by more than three years’ delay in reasserting its infringement claims as to the same patents, raises concerns of equitable estoppel. Kane v. Delong, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38127, at * 10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) (finding of equitable estoppel is established when patentee misleads the alleged infringer to reasonably infer that the patentee does not intend to enforce its patent, the alleged infringer relies on that conduct, and due to its reliance, the alleged infringer will be materially prejudiced if the patentee is allowed to proceed with its claim). This is particularly true when PT’s delay extended beyond expiry of the Asserted Patents. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 27 of 33 Page ID #:2535 -21- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 Moreover, PT has failed to allege that Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patents prior to PT filing its first action in 2014. Given the dismissal of the 2014 case, PT cannot claim knowledge of the asserted patents prior to this action being filed, as averred in the TAC (¶¶ 208-214, 221-222, 229-230, 237-238, 245-246, 253-254, 261-262, 269-270, 278-279, 286-287, 294-295, 302-303). PT fails to address that PT dismissed its original 2014 case, allowed Defendants to continue operating, and then reappeared in 2017 alleging willful infringement. Thus PT cannot prove willfulness, and these counts must fall. Simpson Performance Prods. v. NecksGen Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83555, at *9-11 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2018). F. The Case Should be Dismissed with Prejudice After three attempts and over three years, PT still fails to sufficiently plead infringement. PT’s TAC should be dismissed with prejudice and Defendants should be entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs for PT’s blatant and repeated Rule 11 failures.5 5 In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and 11(c)(2), Defendants will move for sanctions unless PT withdraws the TAC. See ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 2007 Dist. LEXIS 34467 at *10-11 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007) (noting that “Rule 11 sanctions for a patent infringement claim would be appropriate if it is legally unreasonable or without factual foundation such that an objectively reasonable attorney would not believe that every claim limitation reads on the accused products either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.”) (citation omitted); Carroll Shelby Wheel Co. v. Shelby Trust, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215045 at *9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017) (“Rule 11 permits the imposition of sanctions when filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). PT’s TAC should be dismissed with prejudice. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 28 of 33 Page ID #:2536 -22- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request dismissal with prejudice of PT’s TAC. DATE: December 12, 2018 VENABLE, LLP By: /s/ Sarah S. Brooks Sarah S. Brooks Frank M. Gasparo (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Ralph A. Dengler (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Todd M. Nosher (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Defendants MindGeek USA Inc. et al. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 29 of 33 Page ID #:2537 -23- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 APPENDIX A (Claims of the Asserted Patents at issue) 1. Cataloging Multimedia Data U.S. Patent No. Filed / Issued Asserted Claims Claims Alleged in the Counts 5,832,495 Jul 8, 1996 / Nov 3, 1998. Claims 14, 15 (TAC, ¶215). Claim 13 (TAC, ¶249). 6,212,527 Nov 2, 1998 (claims priority to ‘495) / Apr 3, 2001. Claims 15, 17 (TAC, ¶215). Claims 14-15 (TAC, ¶273). 6,549,911 Feb 16, 2001 (claims priority to the ‘527) / Apr 15, 2003. Claims 14-16 (TAC, ¶215). Claim 14 (TAC, ¶282). 2. Query and Search Results Caching U.S. Patent No. Filed/Issued Asserted Claims Claims Alleged in the Counts 5,813,014 Jul 10, 1996 / Sep 22, 1998 Claims 15-20, 22, 23, 24, 25 (TAC, ¶215). Claim 21 (TAC, ¶217). 6,199,060 May 12, 1998 (claims priority to ‘014) / Mar 6, 2001 Claims 13, 17 (TAC, ¶215). Claims 15-16 (TAC, ¶265). 6,477,537 Feb 22, 2001 (claims priority to ‘060 & ’014) / Nov 5, 2002 Claims 8, 34, 35, 38, 45, 74 (TAC, ¶215). Claims 1, 31-32 (TAC, ¶257). 3. Caching Video U.S. Patent No. Filed/Issued Asserted Claims Claims Alleged in the Counts 5,832,499 Jul 10, 1996 / Nov 3, 1998 Claims 3-7, 18 (TAC, ¶215). Claim 16 (TAC, ¶225). 6,092,080 Nov 2, 1998 (claims priority to ‘499 & ‘495 patents) / Jul 18, 2000 Claims 2-4 (TAC, ¶215). Claims 1-2 (TAC, ¶233). 6,353,831 Apr 6, 2000 (claims priority to ‘080 patent) / Mar 5, 2002 Claims 2 (TAC, ¶215). Claims 1, 6 (TAC, ¶241). Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 30 of 33 Page ID #:2538 -24- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 4. Cataloging and Surveying Data U.S. Patent No. Filed/Issued Asserted Claims Claims Alleged in the Counts 6,581,071 Sep 12, 2000 / Jun 17, 2003 Claim 16 (TAC, ¶215). Claim 9 (TAC, ¶290). 6,574,638 Sep 12, 2000 / Jun 3, 2003 Claim 22 (TAC, ¶215). Claims 1, 7 (TAC, ¶298). Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 31 of 33 Page ID #:2539 -25- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 APPENDIX B (Accused Websites, TAC, ¶160) 1. PornHub.com (“www.pornhub.com”) 2. PornhubPremium.com (“www.pornhubpremium.com”) 3. YouPorn.com (“www.youporn.com”) 4. YouPorn Premium (“www.youporn.com/premium”) 5. Tube8.com (“www.tube8.com”) 6. XTube.com (“www.xtube.com”) 7. ExtremeTube.com (“www.extremetube.com”) 8. RedTube.com (“www.redtube.com”) 9. RedTube Premium (“www.redtubepremium.com”) 10. SpankWire.com (“www.spankwire.com”) 11. KeezMovies.com (“www.keezmovies.com”) 12. YouPornGay.com (“www.youporngay.com”) 13. PornMD.com (“www.pornmd.com”) 14. Brazzers (“www.brazzersnetwork.com”) 15. Digital Playground (“www.digitalplayground.com”) 16. Twistys (“www.twistys.com”) 17. Reality Kings (“www.realitykings.com”) 18. SexTube.com (“www.sextube.com”) 19. Beeg.com (“www.beeg.com”) 20. Mofos.com (“www.mofos.com”) 21. MyDirtyHobby.com (“us.mydirtyhobby.com”) 22. GayTube.com (“www.gaytube.com”) 23. Babes.com (“www.babes.com”) 24. Thumbzilla (“www.thumbzilla.com”) 25. SeanCody.com (“www.seancody.com”) 26. Men.com (“www.men.com”) 27. Gay Tube (“www.gaytube.com”) 28. Peeperz (“www.peeperz.com”) 29. Porn IQ (“www.porniq.com”) 30. Adult.com (“www.adult.com”) 31. All Next Door (“www.allnextdoor.com”) 32. Anal Driveway (“www.analdriveway.com”) 33. Bareback HD Porn (“www.barebackhdporn.com”) 34. Cock for Two (“www.cockfortwo.com”) 35. Cum Trainer (“www.cumtrainer.com”) 36. Elegant Anal (“www.elegantanal.com”) 37. Extreme Gangbang (“www.extremegangbang.com”) 38. Fetish360 (“www.fetish360.com”) 39. Latina Sex Tapes (“www.latinasextapes.com”) Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 32 of 33 Page ID #:2540 -26- MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V E N A B L E L L P 2 0 4 9 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S U IT E 2 3 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 -2 2 9 -9 9 0 0 40. Erito.com (“www.erito.com”) 41. Let’s Try Anal (“www.letstryanal.com”) 42. MILFs in Japan (“www.milfsinjapan.com”) 43. Mofos Network (“www.mofosnetwork.com”) 44. MyPorn Downloads (“www.myporndownloads.com”) 45. Office Obsession (“www.officeobession.com”) 46. Pervs on Patrol (“www.pervsonpatrol.com”) 47. Public Pickups (“www.publicpickups.com”) 48. Real Slut Party (“www.realslutparty.com”) 49. Sex Pro Adventures (“www.sexproadventures.com”) 50. She Male Fuck Fest (“www.shemalefuckfest.com”) 51. I Know That Girl (“www.iknowthatgirl.com”) 52. Tranny Surprise (“www.trannysurprise.com”) 53. webcams.com (“www.webcams.com”) 54. All premium versions and domains of the above. Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 92 Filed 12/12/18 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:2541