United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge.
Canon Inc. (“plaintiff” or “Canon”)
alleges that defendants Avigilon USA Corporation and Avigilon
Corporation (collectively “defendants” or
“Avigilon”) are liable for direct, induced and
willful infringement of one of Canon's patents for
transmitting video data.
before the Court is a motion by Avigilon to dismiss the
induced infringement and willful infringement allegations
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow,
that motion will be allowed and the subject claims will be
dismissed without prejudice.
Corporation is a Canadian corporation with a principal place
of business in Vancouver, British Columbia. Avigilon USA
Corporation Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Avigilon, is a
Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in
Texas and a regional office in Massachusetts. Avigilon
designs, develops and manufactures video surveillance
systems, cameras and related products. Canon is a Japanese
corporation which designs and manufactures a variety of
electronics, including cameras and related products.
is the owner of United States Patent Number 10, 135, 952
(“the '952 patent”) which was issued on
November 20, 2018. The '952 patent, entitled
“Method and Corresponding Device for Streaming Video
Data” relates to a method of transmitting web-accessed,
filed its complaint on April 23, 2019, and alleges direct
infringement, induced infringement and willful infringement.
It claims that Avigilon has indirectly infringed the '952
patent by inducing its customers to directly infringe. In
essence, the complaint alleges that a feature in
Avigilon's accused products infringes the '952 patent
and that Avigilon instructs its customers to use that feature
in an infringing manner. Canon contends that Avigilon had
prior knowledge of the '952 patent and that
circumstantial evidence demonstrates Avigilon's intent to
induce infringement by its customers. Moreover, Canon asserts
that defendant's alleged infringement was willful.
has moved to dismiss Canon's claims for induced and
willful infringement because they contain only conclusory
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter” to state a claim for
relief that is actionable as a matter of law and
“plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible if, after accepting as true all
non-conclusory factual allegations, the court can draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Ocasio-Hernandez v.
Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A court
may not disregard properly pled factual allegations even if
actual proof of those facts is improbable. Id.
Rather, the relevant inquiry focuses on the reasonableness of
the inference of liability that the plaintiff is asking the
court to draw. Id. at 13.
rendering that determination, a court may not look beyond the
facts alleged in the complaint, documents incorporated by
reference therein and facts susceptible to judicial notice.
Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir.