As we've mentioned previously, the 12(b)(6) motion based on a lack of detail s, is a dying beast. Only coaxed from its cave by the juiciest of prizes.
It's a simple fact, and it's the work of a blogger to cozy it up in a middling metaphor and accompanying stock photo
[Eds. Note - I've been bugging Andrew to add functionality for Gifs, which I think will really elevate the blog. Consider this my formal request for the Court to implement the same feature on Pacer].
But one can trust Judge Andrews to put it in plain, quotable, terms.
[Eds. Note -- please let me know if you've ever quoted the blog in a filing.]
Vedanta Biosciences Inc. v. Seres Therapeutics, Inc., C.A. No. 24-957-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2026), involved such a motion. Judge Andrews disposed of the motion in a brief order, that I think is worth quoting in full (minus the footnote, for technical reasons and internal citations for readability)
It does not require much to plead a claim for direct patent infringement.
The Amended Complaint identifies the accused product as Vowst. The Amended Complaint alleges that treating patients with Vowst is “covered by one or more claims” of the two asserted method patents and that Defendants’ pharmaceutical composition Vowst is “covered by one or more claims” of three asserted pharmaceutical composition patent Normally, something like these allegations would be sufficient to state a claim that Vowst and its method of use meet the elements of claims of the asserted patents.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not state a claim for direct infringement because Plaintiffs do not sufficiently support the allegation that Vowst “induces proliferation and/or accumulation of regulatory T cells,” and/or that Vowst has “bacterial strains belonging to Clostridium clusters IV and/or XIVa.”
The Amended Complaint alleges: “[L]ive bacterial strains in Vowst® belong to the clostridium genus. Upon further information and belief, at least some of the live bacterial strains in Vowst® belong to Clostridium clusters IV and/or XIVa.” Further, “[T]he live bacterial strains in Vowst® induce proliferation and/or accumulation of regulatory T cells in the human administered Vowst®. Upon information and belief, butyrate supports proliferation and/or accumulation of regulatory T-cells.”
The support for Plaintiffs’ assertions is an issue for another day. The allegations in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to state a claim. The motion to dismiss is DENIED.
So there you go.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
