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

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Pleading infringement standards: motion to dismiss granted in part (but would you guys stop filing motions on issues that moot already?)

By Michael C. Smith

Prompt Medical Systems, L.P., 6:10cv71 (2/11/11)

Judge: Leonard Davis

Holding: Motion to Dismiss GRANTED-IN-PART

A recurring issue in patent cases is how much detail in pleadings is required.  Judge Davis provided another data point week before last in this case when he denied the motion as to the plaintiff's identification of certain products, granted it as to "and/or other products", and denied it as to the indirect infringement claims, and permitted Plaintiff to replead.  Nothing new here, although the "and/or" ruling is nice to have, although the issue is thoroughly moot, as noted below.

Judge Davis specifically denied the request to dismiss the complaint's allegations of injunctive relief, claiming that "as a non-practicing entity Prompt is not eligible for injunctive relief under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)" stating that he would determine whether Prompt is entitled to injunctive relief if it is determined that Defendants infringe Prompt?s patent.  Judge Davis also rejected Defendants' claim that Prompt must more fully plead each of the eBay factors under Rule 8, noting that he'd seen no authority that an injunction?which is a remedy and not a cause of action?must be pleaded with more specific facts.

But the most important part of the opinion is something Judge Davis has said repeatedly, so I'll reproduce it here in full:

The Court notes that Prompt has already served its Patent Rule 3-1 disclosures. See Docket No. 184. Rule 3-1 disclosures are far more detailed than Rule 8's pleading requirements. Thus, before the Court ruled on this motion, Defendants had already received greater specificity than what they sought in this motion, rendering this motion superfluous for all practical purposes. The Court strongly encourages the parties to try this case on the merits and not unnecessarily burden the Court with technical issues that lack practical substance.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on February 19, 2011 (boomark / email).