Court Dismisses Contributory Patent Infringement Claim, But Declines to Dismiss Induced and Willful Infringement Claims

In a May 12, 2014 ruling, Judge Robert D. Sweet refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s induced patent infringement claim and claim for willful infringement, but did dismiss the contributory infringement claim under Rule 12(b)(6). With regard to the induced infringement, the Court wrote that the fact that the plaintiff and defendant are competitors in producing the goods covered by the patents-in-suit, that the plaintiff marked its goods with the pertinent patents, and that industry trade publications mentioned the existence of the plaintiff’s patents all gave rise to the inference that the defendant knew of the patents or turned a willful blind eye to their existence. Judge Sweet further ruled that that these same facts supported the plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement. The Court, however, dismissed the contributory infringement claim, noting that claims “of indirect infringement [necessary to support a contributory infringement claim] requires the application of Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard,” and the “Complaint makes a barebones recitation that the [accused device] was ‘especially made or especially adapted’ for an infringing use and that it has ‘no substantial noninfringing uses.’”

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Patent Infringement Complaint, Citing Relaxed Pleading Standard

In a November 8, 2013 ruling, Judge Richard J. Sullivan declined to dismiss plaintiff Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC's third amended patent infringement complaint against Digital Playground, Inc. and others.  First, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the direct infringement claim.  In doing so, Judge Sullivan wrote:

Direct infringement claims operate under a unique legal standard.  The Federal Circuit has held that any direct infringement claim mirroring Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient to state a claim.  This is so even if the pleadings would otherwise not satisfy the plausibility-pleading standard that applies to all other claims.

(citation omitted)  The Court also applied the relaxed pleading standard to the allegations against all "Defendants" generally, noting that there is "no reason not to interpret every allegation that 'Defendants' did something as a stand in for an allegation that 'Defendant A, Defendant B, . .  .and Defendant Z' each did something."

Court Finds That Federal Circuit's Akamai Decision Did Not Change Law of Direct Patent Infringement

In an August 26, 2013 ruling, Judge Deborah A. Batts denied reconsideration of the Court's ruling dismissing plaintiff Edwin Lyda's patent infringement claim against Fremantlemedia North America, Inc.  Lyda argued that the Federal Circuit's decision in Akami Techs, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012), which overruled in part BMC Resouces Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) relied on in the Court's original ruling, warranted reconsideration.  Akamai and BMC, however, both deal with induced infringement, and Lyda's claim was based on direct infringement.  Judge Batts ruled that Akamai did not overrule the portion of BMC on which she relied in her earlier decision, and that the Akamai decision "consciously avoided ruling on direct infringement."  Thus, Judge Batts found that "Akamai did not change the law of direct infringement, and it is, therefore, not relevant to the Court's prior decisions."