Miscellaneous

E.D. Va. Dismisses Patent Infringement Claims under Twombly/Iqbal

This court finds plaintiff?s conclusory allegations in the complaint neither give defendants notice of the substance of the suit against them, nor raise the right to relief above the speculative level.

This court is persuaded by the precedent in this district and from other district courts to consider the issue that plaintiff has not met its burden under Rule 8. First, plaintiff never identifies any particular products or services that are alleged to be infringing. Rather, with regard to each defendant, the complaint merely states, defendant manufactures, uses and sells ?products and services? that infringe plaintiff?s ?760 patent, including ?legal discovery software and services??

Nowhere does the complaint further identify what legal discovery software or services are alleged to be infringing with regard to any defendant. Further, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail about the defendants and their products such that defendants would be on notice as to which products or services are the subject of the suit.

Moreover, plaintiff fails the plausibility test set forth in Iqbal. The court is left with a ?sheer possibility? that one of defendants? numerous products or serves infringes the ?760 patent in one way or another.

Full post as published by Federal Civil Practice Bulletin on February 04, 2011 (boomark / email).