Court Upholds Sufficiency of Patent Infringement Complaint Under Iqbal

In a March 16, 2016 ruling, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin denied the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint alleging willful direct, induced and contributory infringement. Applying the Iqbal standard for all three types of infringement, Judge Scheindlin found the allegations of direct infringement adequate, writing:

Allegations that plead that “a specific product [] allegedly infringes [the] patent by virtue of certain specific characteristics” meet the Iqbal plausibility standard. A plaintiff is not required to list which of the claims in the patent have been infringed in its pleading; as the Federal Circuit has recently reiterated, “a plaintiff need not even identify which claims are being infringed.”

With regard to the induced infringement claim, the Court found:

The Complaint also contains details regarding the printed instructional material and website instructions provided by [the defendant] instructing its customers as to how to use the [accused system] in a manner that allegedly directly violates the ‘641 Patent. This level of detail is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Judge Scheindlin also upheld the pleading of the contributory infringement claim, noting:

As explained above, [the plaintiff] has sufficiently pled direct infringement and that [the defendant} was aware of the ‘641 Patent. [The plaintiff] also alleges that the [accused system] and its various components have no substantial noninfringing use. While [the defendant] argues that [the plaintiff's] general allegation to that effect is insufficiently particular to satisfy Iqbal, “numerous post-Iqbal cases have not required detailed factual allegations in support of a plaintiff’s claim that a defendant’s product lacks substantial noninfringing uses.”

The Court did, however, find the claim for willful infringement to be inadequately pled, ruling:

The facts pled here offer a plausible risk that [the defendant] was infringing the ‘641 Patent by selling the [accused system] — and this is why [the plaintiff's] other claims survive [the defendant's] motion to dismiss. But these allegations do not rise to the much higher level of objectively reckless risk of infringement. Without additional facts to support a conclusion that the risk of infringement was highly likely, [the plaintiff] has failed to meet its burden.

Judge Scheindlin did all the plaintiff to file an amended complaint bolstering the willful infringement facts, if possible.

Court Denies Stay Pending PTAB's Consideration of Petition to Institute IPR

In a March 3, 2016 ruling, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the defendant's motion for a stay of the plaintiff's patent infringement claims pending the PTAB's decision on whether to institute an IPR.  The deciding factor in the Court's ruling was the parties' relationship as competitors, leading the Court to conclude that "in spite of Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff is the more powerful entity, Plaintiff nonetheless faces prejudice as the current patent-holder."  Judge Failla concluded by noting that "if the PTO later institutes IPR proceedings, the Court may be in a better position to revisit a potential stay, and Defendants may renew their motion at that time."