Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in view of disclaimer of all patents in suit

E.D. Tex.February 27, 2019

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION STRAGENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BMW MANUFACTURING CO., LLC, Defendants. Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00446-RWS-KNM LEAD CASE STRAGENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants. Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00447-RWS-KNM STRAGENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00448-RWS-KNM PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Case 6:16-cv-00446-RWS-KNM Document 111 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 4627 1 Plaintiff Stragent LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby respectfully moves the Court to dismiss the above-captioned cases with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. BACKGROUND All three actions in these consolidated proceedings by Plaintiff alleging infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,209,705 and 8,566,843. The two Patents are the only issues raised in the pleadings the three consolidated actions. Plaintiff is the assignee owner of the two Patents. On February 18, 2019, Plaintiff/patentee disclaimed all the claims of both Patents, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253 and 37 C.F.R. 1.321(a). The two disclaimers are attached as Exhibits A and B. The Court can take judicial notice of the disclaimers. See Fed.R.E. 201(b); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Hoganas A.B. v. Dresser Indus., 9 F.3d 948, 954 n.27 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 897 F.2d 511, 514 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ARGUMENT The two disclaimers moot the actions, because the infringement and the validity and enforceability of the two Patents are the sole issues raised by the pleadings in the consolidated proceedings. In view of the disclaimers, there are no issues for the Court to determine. Further, the Court no longer has any subject matter jurisdiction, and all three consolidated actions must, therefore, be dismissed. Disclaiming particular claims under § 253 “effectively eliminate[s] those claims from the original patent.” Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed.Cir.1998). In other words, upon entry of a disclaimer under § 253, the disclaimed patents and claims had “never existed.” Id. See also SHFL Entm't, Inc. v. DigiDeal Case 6:16-cv-00446-RWS-KNM Document 111 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 4628 2 Corp., 729 F. App'x 931, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists. If there is no longer a possibility that an appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Target Training Int’l, Ltd. v. Extended Disc N. Am., Inc., 645 Fed.Appx. 1018, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (upholding the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction after claims cancelled after reexamination); Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“When a [patent] claim is cancelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that claim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are asserted becomes moot”); Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 507, 518 (D. Del. 2018). Thus, as a matter of law, the three cases must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A proposed order is attached for the Court’s convenience. Dated: February 27, 2019 Respectfully submitted, Case 6:16-cv-00446-RWS-KNM Document 111 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 4629 3 Of Counsel: Thomas F. Meagher tmeagher@meagheremanuel.com Alan Christopher Pattillo cpattillo@meagheremanuel.com MEAGHER EMANUEL LAKS GOLDBERG & LIAO, LLP One Palmer Square, Suite 325 Princeton, NJ 08542 (609) 454-3500 /s/George Pazuniak Sean T. O’Kelly (DE No. 4349) sokelly@oeblegal.com George Pazuniak DE (No. 478) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) gp@del-iplaw.com O’KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 478-4230 Christopher M. Joe State Bar No. 00787770 Chris.Joe@BJCIPLaw.com Michael D. Ricketts State Bar No. 24079208 Mickey.Ricketts@BJCIPLaw.com BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC 1700 Pacific Avenue Suite 4750 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 466-1272 Facsimile: (214) 635-1828 Attorneys for Plaintiff Stragent, LLC Case 6:16-cv-00446-RWS-KNM Document 111 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 4630 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a) on this 27th day of February 2019. Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and first class mail. /s/George Pazuniak George Pazuniak DE (No. 478) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Case 6:16-cv-00446-RWS-KNM Document 111 Filed 02/27/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 4631