Anza Technology, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Incorporated

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

S.D. Cal.December 21, 2016

DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -1- 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 Christine Yang (CA Bar No. 102048) E-mail: cyang@sjclawpc.com Victoria D. Hao (pro hac vice) E-mail: vhao@sjclawpc.com Law Office of S.J. Christine Yang 17220 Newhope Street Suite 101-102 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Telephone: (714) 641-4022 Facsimile: (714) 641-2082 David M. Hoffman (pro hac vice) hoffman@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-4070 FACSIMILE: (512) 320-8935 Attorneys for Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Anza Technology, Inc., Plaintiff, v. D-Link Systems, Inc., Defendant. Case No. 3:16-cv-1263-BEN(AGS) DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED HON. JUDGE ROGER T. BENITEZ HON. MAG. JUDGE SCHOPLER Courtroom 5A (Fifth Floor) Hearing Date: Feb 6, 2017 Hearing Time: 10:30 AM Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -2- 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 MOTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. Proc.”) 12(b)(6), Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. (“Defendant” or “D-Link Systems”) respectfully moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement dated November 23, 2016 (the “FAC” or “Complaint”) of Plaintiff Anza Technology, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Anza”) (ECF No. 28), for failure to plead the facts necessary to state a plausible claim for relief. This Motion incorporates the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and such additional papers and arguments that may be hereinafter presented in connection with this motion. Defendant respectfully submits the following brief in support of its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -3- 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28, “FAC”) still fails to plead its allegations with the degree of specificity required to provide D-Link Systems adequate notice under the Twombly/Iqbal standard as to the grounds supporting Plaintiff’s allegations of infringement. In response to this Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint, Plaintiff’s FAC amended its complaint by adding a series of product numbers for Defendant’s finished products. However, as Plaintiff rests its infringement theory on the manufacturing process of integrated circuit (“IC”) chips and each finished product can contain a number of IC chips, the mere identification of finished product numbers remains insufficient. The FAC still fails to allege which IC chips of the identified products are made using the allegedly infringing process. Further, the FAC fails to allege how compliance with any specific industry standard(s) constitutes per se infringement of the Patents-In-Suit. Moreover, the FAC fails to state how the same alleged infringing process could constitute infringement for both counts, when the a finding of infringement of the claim language forming the basis for the first count (regarding the first patent-in- suit) is mutually exclusive of a finding of infringement of the claim language forming the basis for the other count (regarding the second patent-in-suit) in the same complaint. See Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., No. 15 C 10746, 2016 WL 2866134, at *6 (N.D. Ill., May 17, 2016). Moreover, a pleading offering only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Again, Plaintiff’s FAC provides only conclusory statements about the identified products, by merely declaring “on information and belief” that products infringe without providing any plausible factual basis for alleging that D-Link Systems uses or directs the particular Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -4- 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 manufacturing method set forth in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Thus, Plaintiff’s FAC fails to allege any facts that support Plaintiff’s claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) that Defendant has imported products into the United States that incorporated IC chips that were made using an infringing method, and therefore fails to conform to the pleading requirements espoused by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31465 (March 10, 2014) (dismissing direct infringement claims for failing to comply with Twombly/Iqbal). II. THE LEGAL STANDARD This Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint well summarizes the applicable pleading standards. Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) at 5-7. III. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff’s FAC alleges infringement of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,124,927 (“the ’927 Patent”) and claims 53 and 55 of U.S. Patent No. 7,389,905 (“the ’905 Patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-In-Suit”) by D-Link Systems under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). See, FAC ¶¶ 13 and 25. These asserted claims of the Patents- In-Suit are method claims for using a particular tool. For example, claim 16 of the ’927 Patent is directed to “[a] method of utilizing a flip chip bonding tool and ball placement capillary in a microelectronic assembly,” and claims 53 and 55 of the ’905 Patent are directed to “[a] method for using a flip chip bonding tool in microelectronic assembly.” See also, Exhibits A and B to FAC. The FAC includes the boilerplate language reciting “making” and “manufacturing” activity for jurisdictional purposes (see FAC, ¶ 4) and the seemingly erroneous allegation that “Defendants [sic] hereby allege that the Accused Products are assembled using the methods of the claims of the asserted patents” (FAC ¶ 8). Notwithstanding these generic allegations, the FAC, however, Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 4 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -5- 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 fails to provide any factual basis for believing that D-Link Systems uses or directs a chip manufacturer to use the particular manufacturing regime required by the asserted claims for any specific IC chip in the identified products. The FAC does not even allege D-Link Systems, any of its vendors or any of the chip manufacturers own the very particular tool as recited in the Patents-In-Suit. Instead, the FAC merely alleges that the Accused Product comply with certain standards and that “in manufacturing the Accused Products consistent with such standards, the ICs of the Accused Products are bonded using bonding tools meeting the resistance range specified in claim 16” (FAC ¶ 18). However, the FAC fails to specify (1) which specific IC chips are allegedly manufactured “consistent with such standards” (FAC ¶ 18); (2) which industry standards are at issue; or (3) how compliance with any specific standard leads to infringement of the Patents-In-Suit. In fact, at Paragraph 16, the FAC references no less than four (4) Industry Standard Setting Organizations, each of which publishes hundreds of standard provisions. A. ASSERTED CLAIMS Claim 16 of the ’927 Patent reads: Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 5 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -6- 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 Claims 53 and 55 of the ’905 Patent, respectively, read: B. ADMITTED PRIOR ART The Patents-In-Suit acknowledge that “flip chip bonding techniques” have been well known in the prior art. See, for example, the ’927 Patent, Exhibit A to FAC, “Description of the Prior Art”, Col. 1:42-67 (emphasis added): Especially in view of the inventor’s own admitted prior art, a viable allegation of infringement cannot stand on D-Link Systems merely importing or selling “products that depend on high density integrated circuit (“IC”) chips that require Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 6 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -7- 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 the use of flip chip bonding techniques during manufacture and/or assembly” (FAC, ¶ 14). IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED Plaintiff’s FAC still fails to meet the pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8 as articulated by Iqbal and Twombly. A. The FAC Fails To Provide Supporting Facts for Its “Information and Belief” Conclusory Allegations Reciting no factual detail for support, the FAC provides only conclusory statements about Defendant’s alleged practice of the claimed methods “on information and belief”. There are no supporting facts in the FAC and no supporting documents or claim charts that support Plaintiff’s statements on “information and belief” regarding D-Link Systems’ infringement. Identifying a patent directed to a specific method of forming an integrated chip and then merely identifying D-Link Systems’ end finished products (that contain multiple IC chips) is clearly insufficient. See, e.g., Apollo Fin., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 15CV9696RSWLPJWX, 2016 WL 3234518, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) (dismissing complaint where Plaintiff merely “identifie[d] the allegedly infringing products and parrot[ed] the language of a direct patent infringement claim.”); Mike Murphy’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Fineline Indus., LLC, No. 1:16-CV-784-LJO-SAB, 2016 WL 4160756, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) (“Merely naming a product and providing a conclusory statement that it infringes a patent is insufficient to meet the ‘plausibility’ standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal.”). While these conclusory allegations may suggest that D-Link Systems sells finished products that include IC chips, they do nothing to suggest that the IC chips in the end finished products were manufactured in the manner claimed in the Patents-in-Suit. “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.” Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 7 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -8- 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 Solis v. City of Fresno, No. 1:11-cv-00053 AWI GSA, 2012 WL 868681 *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012). To the extent that the FAC attempts to address certain claim elements, for example, at ¶¶ 19-20, the allegedly infringing features of “ball-shaped” “thermally and electrically conductive” solders on an IC are not neither methods nor process steps. Further, the allegedly infringing features of “ball-shaped” “thermally and electrically conductive” solders on an IC are admitted prior art in the Patents-in- Suit. For example, the Patents-in-Suit acknowledges a prior art “process whereby a metal sphere is melted.” FAC Patents-In-Suit “Description of the Prior Art” at col. 2- 3 Further, the Patent-in-Suit explain that the invention “relates to flip chip bonding tool tips” (emphasis added). The ’927 Patent, Col. 1: 38. Yet, the FAC does not even allege D-Link Systems, any of its vendors or any of the chip manufacturers own the very particular tool tips as recited in the Patents-In-Suit. Thus, the FAC’s general discussion of certain claim elements, for example, at ¶¶ Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 8 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -9- 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 19-21, fails to support or cure the FAC’s conclusory statements about Defendant’s alleged practice of the claimed methods “on information and belief”. Therefore, Plaintiff’s FAC remains “devoid of sufficient allegations to make infringement [] plausible, as opposed to merely possible.” Atlas IP, 2016 WL 1719545 at *3 Atlas IP LLC v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 2016 WL 1719545, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (emphasis added) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff “recite[d] only some of the elements of the sole asserted claim and provid[ed] a threadbare description of the alleged abilities of the accused device.”). B. The FAC Fails To Identify Which IC Chips Or Relevant Standards That If Followed Necessarily Infringe The Patents A plaintiff must on the face of the complaint “provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’…, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff fails in the FAC to adequately identify how the allegedly infringing method relates to the accused products, alleging only that the accused products may contain unidentified IC chips purportedly made by a laundry list of chipmakers, that may comply with a list of unspecified industry standards (only the standards organizations are identified). Notably, there are no allegations as to which industry standards are at issue, which IC chips are implementing the relevant (unidentified) standards, or how the act of incorporating a specific chip advertised to comply with a specific standard necessarily causes the alleged infringement. Notably the FAC only alleges that Defendant infringes the Patents-in-Suit pursuant to 35 USC § 271 (g) by importing into the United States an end finished product which allegedly uses an IC chip made by an infringing process. If Plaintiff is actually aware of any specific IC chip contained in the finished products imported into the United States by Defendant that is manufactured using any of the claimed methods or is aware of an entity who owns or uses the very particular tool Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 9 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -10- 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 tips as recited in the Patents-In-Suit, it has not shared any of these facts in the FAC. C. The FAC Pleads Mutually Exclusive Infringement Theories Plaintiff’s FAC must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for another reason: the allegations between the two patents are mutually exclusive, i.e., if the infringement alleged with respect to the ’927 patent is assumed to be true, the identical allegations as to the accused products characteristics cannot be true with respect to infringement of the ’905 patent, and hence infringement cannot lie as a matter of law. The Court has already considered this pleading impossibility in the Arris case, where the Court explained: Moreover, the Amended Complaint appears to lack facts demonstrating that each limitation of the asserted claims has been satisfied. For instance, the same factual allegations are used to plead infringement of both Asserted Patents (see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15-19 (count one for infringement of ’927 patent) and ¶¶ 23-27 (count two for infringement of ’905 patent)), but the patents seem to have mutually exclusive requirements. While claim 16 of the ’927 patent requires a “dissipative material having a resistance low enough to prevent a discharge of a charge to a device being bonded and high enough to stop all current flow to the device being bonded,” claim 55 of the ’905 patent requires a “smooth cur[r]ent to dissipate to the device, the current being low enough so as not to damage the device being bonded and high enough to avoid a build up of charge that could discharge to the device being bonded and damage the device being bonded.” (Am. Compl. Exs. A, B (emphases added).) As an initial matter, the Court cannot pinpoint which of Plaintiff’s generalized allegations relate to these specific limitations. Second, by relying on the same allegations to argue that the Accused Products practice each of these different limitations, Plaintiff has not pled plausible claims. Cf. Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., No. 15 C 10746, 2016 WL 2866134, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2016) (“Atlas’ claim for relief therefore rests on . . . untenable positions. . . . [I]t neglects the fact that its explanation of how the Network Products allegedly practice the Frame and Power Elements means that they almost certainly do not practice the Repeating Cycle Element.”). Anza Tech. Inc. v. Arris Group Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01261-BEN-AGS (hereinafter “Arris”) (ECF No. 31 (Arris Order) at 9.) The FAC similarly alleges simultaneously that in both counts the same IC chips result in the infringement of claim 16 of the ’927 and claim 55 of the ’905, Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 10 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -11- 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 which as explained above this Court has already found to be mutually exclusive allegations of infringement because the counts require the opposite electrical characteristics to infringe the respective claim. The Atlas IP case conundrum clearly bars assertion of the mutually exclusive claims against Defendant in this case as well. See Atlas IP, LLC, 2016 WL 2866134, at *6. Accordingly, the Court should grant the Defendant’s motion to dismiss on this ground as well. V. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28) under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b) (6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dated: December 21, 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christine Yang Christine Yang (CA Bar No. 102048) Victoria Hao (Pro Hac Vice) Law Offices of S.J. Christine Yang 17220 Newhope Street, Suites 101 & 102 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Tel: (714) 641-4022 Fax: (714) 641-2082 cyang@sjclawpc.com vhao@sjclawpc.com David M. Hoffman (Pro Hac Vice) hoffman@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-4070 FACSIMILE: (512) 320-8935 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT D- LINK SYSTEMS, INC. Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 11 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DIMISS AND MPA ISO THEREOF CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -12- 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on this date to all counsel of record, if any to date, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per CivLR 5.4(d). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery upon their appearance in this matter. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 21 st day of December, 2016. /s/ Christine Yang Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31 Filed 12/21/16 Page 12 of 12 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DIMISS CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -1- 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 Christine Yang (CA Bar No. 102048) E-mail: cyang@sjclawpc.com Victoria D. Hao (pro hac vice) E-mail: vhao@sjclawpc.com Law Office of S.J. Christine Yang 17220 Newhope Street Suite 101-102 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Telephone: (714) 641-4022 Facsimile: (714) 641-2082 David M. Hoffman (Pro Hac Vice) hoffman@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-4070 FACSIMILE: (512) 320-8935 Attorneys for Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Anza Technology, Inc., Plaintiff, v. D-Link Systems, Inc., Defendant. Case No. 3:16-cv-1263-BEN(AGS) DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) HON. JUDGE ROGER T. BENITEZ HON. MAG. JUDGE SCHOPLER Courtroom 5A (Fifth Floor) Hearing Date: Feb 6, 2017 Hearing Time: 10:30 AM Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 4 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DIMISS CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -2- 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 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 6, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-entitled court, located at 221 West Broadway, 5th Floor of the Schwartz Courthouse, San Diego, California, in Courtroom 5A, Defendant, D-Link Systems, Inc. (“D-Link Systems”), will move the court to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28) of Plaintiff Anza Technology, Inc. (“Anza”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground Anza failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion will be based on this Notice of Motion; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith; all pleadings and papers filed herein; and such further evidence and argument as may be submitted at the hearing on this motion. Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 4 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DIMISS CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -3- 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 Dated: December 21, 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christine Yang Christine Yang Victoria Hao (Pro Hac Vice) Law Offices of S.J. Christine Yang 17220 Newhope Street, Suites 101 & 102 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Tel: (714) 641-4022 Fax: (714) 641-2082 cyang@sjclawpc.com vhao@sjclawpc.com David M. Hoffman (Pro Hac Vice) hoffman@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-4070 FACSIMILE: (512) 320-8935 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT D- LINK SYSTEMS, INC. Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 4 DEFENDANT D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DIMISS CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1263-BEN(AGS) -4- 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on this date to all counsel of record, if any to date, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per CivLR 5.4(d). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery upon their appearance in this matter. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 21 st day of December, 2016. /s/ Christine Yang Case 3:16-cv-01263-BEN-AGS Document 31-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 4 of 4