Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Complaint Lacking Identification of Infringing Act or Direct Infringer Failed to State a Claim

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's infringement claims for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. "[Plaintiff's] allegation of direct infringement does not adhere to Form 18 [of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure] in that it does not identify any accused products, services, or methods or other infringing acts for the patent-in-suit. As to its indirect infringement claims, [plaintiff] also does not identify any accused products or services, nor does [plaintiff] expressly identify a direct infringer. Form 18 does not address indirect infringement claims, and courts are split on whether a direct infringer must be at least generically identified. . . . Taken as whole [plaintiff's] complaint does not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The complaint simply fails to inform Defendants as to what they must defend. While Form 18 does not set a high bar for what must be alleged, [plaintiff] has not met that bar. The Court has high expectations of a plaintiff’s preparedness before it brings suit."

Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al., 6-09-cv-00269 (March 29, 2010, TXED Order) (Davis, J.)

No comments: