“[T]hese statements fall short. They simply assume that either all or a majority of cell phones have the infringing circuit.” – CAFC
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam ruling in Huang v. Amazon.com, Inc. affirming the Northern District of California’s dismissal of patent infringement claims broadly seeking damages for the smartphone industry’s use of semiconductor technologies. The Federal Circuit agreed that pro se appellant Xiaohua Huang did not provide fair notice to Amazon and other defendants by properly specifying which accused products infringed the asserted claims, and that a repeated inability to cure defects supported the district court’s denial of leave to amend.
This appeal comes to the Federal Circuit following Northern California district court’s dismissal of Huang’s second amended complaint (SAC) and denial of leave to file a third amended complaint (TAC). Huang first sued Facebook owner Meta Platforms in the Middle District of Florida and later added several defendants to a first amended complaint (FAC) including Walmart, Best Buy and Amazon. Following transfer of the case to the Northern District of California, Huang filed a SAC naming Amazon as the sole defendant.
Overly Inclusive Language, Repeated Failure to Cure Deficiencies Dooms Appeal
Huang’s infringement claims focused primarily on U.S. Patent No. RE45259, Hit Ahead Hierarchical Scalable Priority Encoding Logic and Circuits. The SAC filed by Huang included an exhibit purporting to establish that a wide scope of consumer electronics using electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) chips infringed claims of the ‘259 patent. The SAC was dismissed for failing to specify which particular products are at issue and for concluding EEPROM chip devices infringed the ‘259 patent without making factual allegations. After Huang provided a redlined TAC including new exhibits making similar broad claims that the consumer electronics industry broadly infringes claims of the ‘259 patent, the district court denied Huang leave to amend because of persistent failures to cure defects.
In a brief decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed both the district court’s dismissal of the SAC and denial of leave for Huang to file the TAC. Although the SAC and its attached exhibits list devices that allegedly infringe the ‘259 patent’s claims, the appellate court found issue with Huang’s use of inclusive language like “including but not limited to” or “etc.” in reference to accused products. Further, by simply contending that all accused products containing the EEPROM circuit allegedly infringe the ‘259 patent, Huang provided no factual allegations linking the allegedly infringing chip to those products. “[T]hese statements fall short,” the appellate court wrote. “They simply assume that either all or a majority of cell phones have the infringing circuit.”
The Federal Circuit also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Huang’s leave to file his TAC. The appellate court noted that, as far back as his FAC, Huang continuously only identified broad, vague categories of accused products. Given these repeated failures to cure deficient allegations despite notice, denying Huang leave to amend was appropriate. On appeal, Huang argued that his TAC should be considered a FAC because the SAC was the first complaint filed following transfer to Northern California, but the Federal Circuit denied Huang’s invitation to adopt this principle, affirming the rest of the district court’s dismissal.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 103763568
Copyright: bigfatnapoleon
