A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Motion to Dismiss

Court Denies § 101 Motion, Holding That "address[ing] § 101 issues in . . . seriatim . . . is not a good use of the Court's time"

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 25, 2023
Motion to Dismiss Congestion

Terracotta Warriors
Aaron Greenwood, Unsplash

Along the lines of on Friday's post, Judge Noreika issued an order in a different case this week denying a § 101 motion because it addressed only a subset of claims, and suggested that more claims may be asserted:

ORAL ORDER re (10 in 1:23-cv-00174-MN) (9 in 1:23-cv-00220-MN) MOTION to Dismiss - Defendants have filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that claim 1 in two of the four asserted patents is directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. . . . Defendants state in a footnote that they are not addressing other claims, but that very same footnote suggests that the Court may face additional § 101 arguments in the future should Plaintiff add further asserted claims from the two patents at issue in the motion and that the Court may also later have to address § 101 with respect to the remaining two patents not subject to the present motion. (C.A. No. 23-220, D.I. 10 at 2 n.2). Given that Defendants' § 101 motions suggest that the Court will be forced to address § 101 issues in this case seriatim and because doing so is not a good use of the Court's time, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss are DENIED without prejudice to renew as appropriate during summary judgment. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 10/23/2023.

AlmondNet, Inc. v. Freewheel Media, Inc., C.A. No. 23-220 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2023).

What was in the footnote? An admission that the motion doesn't resolve all of the claims:

This motion is directed to only two claims—claim 1 of the ’307 patent and claim 1 of the ’249 patent—because they are the only claims of those patents that the Complaint alleges Defendants infringe. . . . While Plaintiffs could conceivably assert other claims of the ’307 and ’249 patents if the Court grants this motion, they would do so at their peril because those other claims add only incidental limitations to the two at issue here. Thus, resolution of this motion will likely dispose of two of the four asserted patents in this case. Moreover, because Plaintiffs’ patents are all similar—and all face similar obstacles under Section 101—Defendants believe that deciding this motion now will streamline and promote resolution of this entire case, and possibly of other AlmondNet cases as well, since they involve similar or overlapping patents. . . . Accordingly, Defendants believe that deciding this motion now, at the Rule 12 stage, will be an efficient use of the Court’s resources.

Id., D.I. 10 at 2 n.2.

This outcome is not unusual, but it's definitely something to keep in mind when evaluating ...

View

Court Dismisses All Claims with Prejudice After IPR—Even Though Some Were Not Invalidated

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 23, 2023
Voluntary Dismissal MTD

Dart in Target
Silvan Arnet, Unsplash

Both parties in Wrinkl, Inc. v. Meta Platforms Inc., C.A. No. 20-1345-RGA (D. Del.) agreed that the case should be dismissed after the PTAB invalidated 50 of the 54 asserted claims, but disagreed about whether the remaining 4 claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff claimed that it did not intend to assert the remaining claims, but that it should retain the right to, and that it is unaware of caselaw holding that the Court cannot dismiss some claims with prejudice and some without.

The defendant argued that the Court cannot split up the claims, and must dismiss all or nothing with prejudice:

Defendants contend there is no legal support or precedent …
View

In Response to § 101 Motion, Judge Noreika Orders Plaintiff to Identify Asserted Claims (a Prelude to Denial?)

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 22, 2023
MTD Motion to Dismiss

"How many more claims will we assert? I'm glad you asked..." Klim Musalimov, Unsplash

We noted last year how Judge Noreika has sometimes denied § 101 motions to dismiss that challenge large numbers of claims, holding that it is more efficient to deal with such motions at the SJ stage (where, presumably, the case would be narrowed).

This week, the Court addressed a § 101 motion in Global Tel*Link Corporation v. JACS Solutions, Inc., C.A. No. 23-500-MN (D. Del.). The motion seeks a § 101 ineligibility finding for 5 claims across 5 asserted patents—i.e., one claim per patent. That's all the plaintiff asserted in the complaint. Id., D.I. 20.

In response, the plaintiff (wisely) argued …

View

How Little Is Too Little? Court Dismisses Patent Complaint for Lack of Detail, Threatens Sanctions

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 20, 2023
MTD FRCP 12(b)(6)

Little
Paul Kramer, Unsplash

One of the early questions in many cases (particularly NPE cases) is whether the defendant can move to dismiss the complaint under 12(b)(6) for lacking sufficient detail under Twombly/Iqbal.

The answer is yes: You can, as long as there is insufficient detail. But what is the cutoff? How bad does it have to be?

We got an example of that on Monday, when Chief Judge Connolly dismissed a complaint for lacking detail. According to the Court, all the plaintiff did was say that the defendant's product infringes the claim:

"[A] plaintiff cannot assert a plausible claim for infringement under the Iqbal/Twombly standard by reciting the claim elements and merely concluding that the accused …
View

Competitor Cannot Escape DJ Action, Even Absent Specific Allegation of Infringement

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2023
MTD Motion to Dismiss

It's clear who was the faster draw.
It's clear who was the faster draw. AI-Generated

In Candid Care Co., v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, C.A. No. 21-1180-CFC (D. Del.), SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care—its competitor—for patent infringement of a single patent. Chief Judge Connolly dismissed the case, holding that the patent was patent ineligible under § 101.

The next day, SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care on a second patent in the same family, this time in the Western District of Texas.

But the Western District of Texas transferred the case back to Delaware—and, because it is related to the previous case, it was assigned to Chief Judge Connolly again. Shortly thereafter (perhaps to avoid its second patent suffering a similar fate under § 101), SmileDirectClub granted …

View

No Pendent Venue for Patent Claims

Andrew E. Russell, May 17, 2023
Venue Transfer

Visualization of pendent venue
Visualization of pendent venue Chris Linnett, Unsplash

Today Chief Judge Connolly addressed a motion to dismiss a combined trade dress, federal unfair competition, copyright infringement, and design patent infringement action.

The parties apparently agreed that the defendant in the action did not meet the TC Heartland venue test for the patent portion of the action:

Argento is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. . . . It is undisputed that Argento does not own, rent, or maintain any offices, physical property, addresses, or bank accounts in Delaware and does not employ any Delaware-based employees, agents, or representatives. It is also undisputed that venue of Globefill's patent claim against Argento does not lie …
View

Whence Defenses?

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 15, 2023
Motion to Dismiss

Even the dullest 1L can tell you that rule 12(b) sets the timing for motions to dismiss:

A motion asserting any of [the 12(b)] defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.

However, pursuant to 12(h), the defenses listed in 12(b)(2)-12(b)(5) are not actually waived as long as you include them as an affirmative defense in your answer (12(b)(1) and (b)(6) have separate rules).

A party waives any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(2)–(5) by . . failing to either:(i) make it by motion under this rule; or include it in a responsive pleading or in an amendment allowed by Rule 15(a)(1) as a matter of course

So then, if these defenses aren't waived, when can you …

View

Judge Kennelly Weighs In on Whether Complaint Can Establish Notice for Willfulness

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 21, 2022
FRCP 12(b)(6) Post-Filing Willfulness

An AI-generated (!!) scene of a split courthouse
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

We've written a lot about how there is a split in the District of Delaware about whether a complaint itself can establish knowledge of infringement sufficient to support a claim of post-filing willfulness or induced infringement.

Early this week, visiting Judge Kennelly weighed in, siding with the judges who say that a complaint can establish knowledge, in a short opinion:

A claim for willful infringement of a patent requires the plaintiff to establish—or at this point in the case, to plausibly allege—that the accused infringer had knowledge of or was willfully blind to the patent and that its conduct constituted, induced, or contributed to infringement. . . . Similarly, a claim of induced or contributory infringement …
View

Impossible-to-Reconcile Federal Circuit Precedent Results in Denial of § 101 Motion

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 20, 2022
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings FRCP 12(b)(6)

Federal Circuit on the left vs. Federal Circuit on the right. Will we get to see round 2?
Federal Circuit on the left vs. Federal Circuit on the right. Will we get to see round 2? Charl Folscher, Unsplash

We talked a couple of days ago about how, in Longbeam Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1559-CFC (D. Del.), Chief Judge Connolly stayed the action after raising plaintiff's inadequate disclosures at a § 101 hearing.

But, at the same hearing, plaintiff actually prevailed on the § 101 motion—and Chief Judge Connolly made some notable comments about how the Federal Circuit has responded to his previous § 101 decisions, and what that means for cases going forward.

Case 1, Universal Secure: Affirmed

The first case, Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., …

View

Judge Bibas Notes Delaware Split Regarding Unclean Hands Counterclaims in Patent Cases

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 16, 2022
MTD Motion to Dismiss

Hand Washing
Tim Mossholder, Unsplash

In an opinion on Friday, visiting Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Third Circuit pointed out a split in District of Delaware cases regarding whether a party can bring unclean hands counterclaims in patent cases:

Nor does TexasLDPC persuade me this declaratory-judgment counterclaim fails as a matter of law. True, courts disagree whether “unclean hands” can support a declaration that a patent is unenforceable. Compare In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 649 F. Supp. 2d 340, 348 (D.N.J. 2009) (concluding it cannot), and Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. Cardinal Health 200, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104983, at *2–3 (D. Del. Jul. 27, 2012) (same),[ ]with The Meds. Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 2011 WL 13141923, at *1 n.2 (D. Del. Oct. 6, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss or strike unclean hands counterclaim).

Judge Bibas sided with the cases holding that "unclean hands" is a proper counterclaim in a patent action:

Still, I will not stop Defendants from demanding a declaratory judgment about the unclean-hands doctrine. In my view, I may grant such relief. See Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004, 1025–26 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A] district court ...
View
Older

Archive