Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Name of An Accused Product and Elements of Induced & Contributory Infringement Not Required to Be Included in Complaint

By Michael C. Smith

LML Patent Corp. v. National Bank of Daingerfield, et al., 2:09cv180 (3/24/11)

Judge: T. John Ward

Holding: Motion to Dismiss DENIED

Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that dismissal was proper because the plaintiff's complaint did not identify any accused product or service by name, and because it didn't allege facts that made a claim of patent infringement against any defendant plausible.  Judge Ward disagreed, noting that while identifying at least one product should not be difficult, given the prefiling investigation requirements of Rule 11, neither Twombly nor Iqbal require identification of a product by name, nor does Form 18.  The Court specifically noted the similarity between the form's use of "electric motors" and the complaint's reference to "payment services".   The motion was similarly denied as to the claim that the complaint must include allegations as to the elements of induced and contributory infringement.

From Docket Navigator.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on March 28, 2011 (boomark / email).