Twice in the past month, Judge Connolly has questioned why defendants are not challenging post-complaint willfulness and indirect infringement claims.
Twice in the past month, Judge Connolly has questioned why defendants are not challenging post-complaint willfulness and indirect infringement claims.
Judge Burke's exacting standards regarding the sufficiency of pleadings in a patent case were on display in a recent R&R, in which he recommended dismissing indirect and willful infringement claims. This ruling demonstrates that although plaintiffs are not required to prove their case as the pleading stage, they are well advised to bolster their complaint with allegations that link the elements of their claims to specific facts.
The key passages of the 24-page R&R in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Vistra Energy Corp., C.A. No. 19-1334-RGA-CJB concern what makes an infringement claim "plausible" under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.
Magistrate Judge Burke issued an R&R today addressing an interesting procedural situation.
In Shure Incorporated et al v. Clearone, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1343-CJB (D. Del. June 1, 2020), the plaintiff moved to amend to add an additional patent, just before the patent issued.
In response, and before oral argument on the motion, the defendant filed a DJ action on the new patent in another jurisdiction, trying to keep that part of the case out of the District of Delaware.
After the Court granted the motion to amend, plaintiff then moved to dismiss under the first-filed rule.
Judge Burke rejected plaintiff's approach, holding both that the amended complaint related back, so it was filed first, and that …
IP/DE offers a morning e-mail newsletter.
You'll have to prove you're not a robot.