Intellectual Property Law

Judge Sue L. Robinson: Complaint Must Set Forth Allegedly Infringing Product or Method

By Karen E. Keller, Andrew A. Lundgren et al.

Amend your complaint or face dismissal of your action. This is what Judge Robinson informed the plaintiffs in Eidos Communications, LLC v. Sype Technologies SA, C.A. No. 09-234-SLR, Memo. Op. (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2010), where the complaint failed to allege that any specific product or category of products infringe the patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs in this case alleged that defendants? ?communication system products and/or methodologies? infringe the patents-in-suit. Id. at 2. There are no specific products or methods described in the complaint and the only language that even comes close to such a description is a general description of the technology found in the background section of the complaint. Even that general description, however, ?does not indicate whether a product or method (or both) are at issue or whether the suit is directed to the transmission of or to the control of either voice or message data.? Id. at 5. The Court ordered plaintiffs to amend their complaint, finding that ?[P]laintiffs were obligated to specify, at a minimum, a general class of products or a general identification of the alleged infringing methods.? Id. at 5.

Eidos Communications, LLC v. Sype Technologies SA, C.A. No. 09-234-SLR, Memo. Op. (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2010).

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on February 25, 2010 (boomark / email).