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

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Motion Challenging Sufficiency of Plaintiff's Repleaded Indirect Infringement Allegations Denied

By Michael C. Smith

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, et. al., 6:09cv446 (E.D. Tex., 12/13/10)

Judge: Leonard Davis

Holding: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim DENIED

On or near the front of the drawer containing defendants' standard defenses at the outset of a patent case (and following Twombly and Iqbal in most cases, actually) is a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion challenging the sufficiency of the factual allegations in a plaintiff's complaint.  In this case, the defense raised such a claim as to the plaintiff's indirect infringement claims.  Judge Davis granted the motion, holding that taken as a whole, Eolas?s indirect infringement claims did not state a claim for indirect infringement that was plausible on its face, specifically, because Eolas?s claims did not identify a direct infringer in reference to its indirect infringement claims.  He granted leave to replead, the plaintiff repleaded, and this motion again challenging the allegations (the order specifies what the plaintiff pleaded and what the defendants' complaints as to what the complaint was still missing were).

Judge Davis disagreed and denied the motion, writing:

Taken as whole, Eolas?s indirect infringement claims in its amended complaint sufficiently comply with Twombly and the Court?s May 6, 2010 order. Eolas?s complaint gives JPMorgan sufficient information to defend its case. Rule 8 does not require detailed factual support for each element of indirect infringement. Additionally, the Court does not require in a complaint the specificity that Patent Rule 3-1 requires, as that would go far beyond Rule 8's requirements. Eolas has adequately pled its claims under Rule 8(a)(2) and Twombly.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on December 16, 2010 (boomark / email).