Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: May 28, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge. Defendant has filed a "Motion to Dismiss the [Amended] Complaint for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or in the Alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)." (D.1. 17). It has been fully briefed. Oral argument would not be helpful. The parties stipulated to multiple extensions of time, apparently to see if the case could be resolved. 1 Unfortunately, it was not. 2 By the time of Defendant's Reply Brief (D.I. 23), the Defenda
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge. Defendant has filed a "Motion to Dismiss the [Amended] Complaint for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or in the Alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)." (D.1. 17). It has been fully briefed. Oral argument would not be helpful. The parties stipulated to multiple extensions of time, apparently to see if the case could be resolved. 1 Unfortunately, it was not. 2 By the time of Defendant's Reply Brief (D.I. 23), the Defendan..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
Defendant has filed a "Motion to Dismiss the [Amended] Complaint for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or in the Alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)." (D.1. 17). It has been fully briefed. Oral argument would not be helpful.
The parties stipulated to multiple extensions of time, apparently to see if the case could be resolved.1 Unfortunately, it was not.2
By the time of Defendant's Reply Brief (D.I. 23), the Defendant was primarily arguing that the Court should construe various terms of the patent and grant summary judgment. The Court has a standard sequence for managing patent cases, and doing claim construction and considering a motion for summary judgment as the first responsive pleading is not a part of that procedure. Thus, the motion for summary judgment (DI 17) is DENIED.
The motion to dismiss has more merit. I believe the claim of direct infringement complies with Form 18, and therefore I will not dismiss it. Plaintiffs claim of contributory infringement is not factually supported, and I do not believe it makes legal sense either. The patent claims are apparatus claims. Plaintiff alleges Defendant sells the apparatus — a corset — to others, who then resell it. I do not see anything in the Amended Complaint from which I could infer that Plaintiff sells a component of a patented product. Thus, I will dismiss the claims of contributory infringement. Plaintiff alleges "joint infringement," but the patent does not make method claims, which is where the joint infringement doctrine typically may apply. Thus, I will also dismiss the joint infringement claims. As to the claims of willfulness and indirect infringement, the major basis for stating that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent is that the Defendant infringes the patent. This is insufficient.
Thus, the motion to dismiss (D.I. 17) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. All claims other than direct infringement are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
