Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc. (D. Mass. 24-cv-11759).

Ocean accused Analog Devices of patent infringement based on allegations that Analog was supplied allegedly infringing semiconductor design software and systems by seven different distributors.

Judge Saris granted in part and denied in part Analog Devices’ motion to dismiss.  She denied the motion with respect to one of the suppliers, Onto, but granted it with respect to the remaining suppliers, finding that Ocean had not plausibly pled that Analog used infringing systems by six suppliers and that Ocean also failed to adequately plead inducement.  She further held that, due to Ocean’s “kitchen-sink approach” to the complaint, the dismissal would be with prejudice—she suggested that Ocean had simply identified general semiconductor players and “indiscriminately” alleged infringement.  Ocean was unable to show that most of the alleged suppliers had, in fact, provided Analog with any equipment and software that allegedly infringed the claims.

Ocean sought certification of this determination for interlocutory appeal.  Certification of this sort is available where the underlying order involves a controlling question of law, presents a substantial ground for a difference of opinion, and is one from which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.  Judge Saris found that there was no substantial ground for a difference of opinion, as the pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly are well established, as is a court’s broad discretion to deny leave to amend a complaint.  She also determined that an interlocutory appeal would not hasten the end of the litigation, which forms a part of a long-lingering controversy between the two parties that includes a 2020 complaint filed by Ocean that remains on-going—this case involves allegations that Ocean was not permitted to add to the first case.