For those paying attention to the evolving law of notice pleading patent infringement, a Florida court confirmed that patent plaintiffs face a raised bar under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). The plaintiff, who provided a claim chart alleging a theory that one patent […]
Archive | Notice Pleading Patent Infringement
Some Complaints for Patent Infringement Easily Fail Under Iqbal and Twombley
Here is an example of how the abnegation of Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is changing patent litigation. In Mike Murphy’s Enters. v. Fineline Indus., LLC, No. 1:16-cv-784-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4 2016), the court granted a Rule12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint alleging infringement of United States Patent No. […]
Divided Infringement Results in Judgment on Pleadings on Induced Infringement
By Peter Keros on May 17, 2015 in Civil Procedure, Divided and Joint Infringement, Indirect Patent Infringement, Notice Pleading Patent Infringement
Finding that a complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the defendant exercised direction or control over all asserted steps of a method patent claim, a court has dismissed a complaint alleging induced infringement under FRCP 12(c). Robert Mankes v. Vivid Seats, Limited, No. 5:13-CV-717-FL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24327 (E.D.N.C. Feb 26, 2015). Based on […]
Goodbye to Form 18?
Form 18 appended to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a form complaint for pleading patent infringement. To the chagrin of many defendants, Form 18 has been used to justify very bare-bones complaints of patent infringement even after the Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombley decisions requiring more detailed pleading. Now Form 18 may be […]
Failure to Meet Indirect Patent Infringement Pleading Standard (and Possible Rule 11 Question)
By Charles Bieneman on May 29, 2014 in Civil Procedure, Notice Pleading Patent Infringement, Rule 11
Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas has granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a complaint of indirect patent infringement where the plaintiff failed to meet the applicable pleading standards. Babbage Holdings, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-750 (E.D. Tex. May 15, 2014 (and seven related cases). Further, because Babbage’s original, first amended, and […]
Knowledge Not Enough for Induced Patent Infringement
A retailer’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a claim of induced patent infringement has been granted where the only allegation of intent to induce infringement rested on the retailer’s alleged knowledge that the product’s user manual instructed customers to perform infringing acts. Tierra Intelectual Borinquen, Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int’l, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-38-JRG (E.D. Texas […]
Pleading Indirect and Willful Patent Infringement Requires Specific Allegations
By Charles Bieneman on October 26, 2013 in Civil Procedure, Indirect Patent Infringement, Litigation, Notice Pleading Patent Infringement, Software Patents, Willful Patent Infringement
Claims for induced, contributory, and willful patent infringement were dismissed (without prejudice) because the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support its claims. Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp., No. 3:13-cv-1278-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013). The plaintiff had alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,996,538, directed to “[a] system and method […]
Conclusory Pleadings Insufficient to Support Indirect Patent Infringement Claims
While the Federal Circuit has held that adherence to Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient to support a claim of direct patent infringement, courts have not uniformly addressed the requirements for pleading indirect infringement, i.e., contributory infringement and infringement by inducement. In one recent example, the court held that a […]
Form 18 Trumps Iqbal and Twombley, Says Fed. Cir.
By Charles Bieneman on April 19, 2013 in Civil Procedure, Litigation, Notice Pleading Patent Infringement
Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the definitive authority concerning whether a plaintiff has adequately plead a claim of patent infringement. K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time-Warner Cable, Inc., Nos. 2012-1425 and 2012-1446 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2013). If Form 18 conflicts with Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) […]
Patent Complaint Satisfying Form 18 (Reluctantly) Allowed
By Charles Bieneman on December 13, 2012 in Civil Procedure, Indirect Patent Infringement, Litigation, Notice Pleading Patent Infringement, Patent Infringement, Software Patents
Although denying a motion to dismiss a complaint of direct patent infringement, a Massachusetts District Court has pointedly stated that “[i]t is difficult to reconcile the simplistic approach for asserting a patent infringement claim contemplated by Rule 84 and Form 18 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] with the pleading standards announced in [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, […]