Intel Corporation v. Future Link Systems, LLCC.A. No. 14-377 - LPS, March 31, 2016.

Burke, M. J. Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss non-infringement counts to complaint be granted in part and denied in part; that Future Link’s motion to dismiss non-infringement counts to Intel’s counterclaims be granted. 

The current dispute is whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue declarations regarding plaintiff’s customers’ products which include plaintiff’s components. Plaintiff has alleged indemnity obligations with respect to two of its customers, and as for the other customers, no indemnity obligation has been alleged. The court finds that plaintiff has not established declaratory judgment jurisdiction for declarations that its customers (for which it has no indemnity obligations) have not directly infringed the asserted patents. There is likewise no jurisdiction with respect to claims of indirect infringement. It recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to this group of customers.  With respect to claims involving customers for which plaintiff has an indemnity obligation, the court finds subject matter jurisdiction exists with respect to the specific patents identified in the demand letters, and recommends denying the motion to dismiss as to these counts.