Adiscov Redux: Judge Smith Denies Motion to Dismiss Re-Filed Complaint
As we blogged here, Judge Smith’s dismissal of the Complaint in Adiscov, L.L.C. v. Autonomy Corp., Case No. 2:10cv218, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11551 (E.D.Va. Jan. 27, 2011), based on Twombly/Iqbal, went a step beyond similar decisions by holding that a patentee must set forth how the accused products infringe the patent at issue. That decision has caused some among the EDVA patent bar to question how much detail a Complaint must contain to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Adiscov clearly got the message. Its re-filed Complaint specified the accused products and included a detailed claim chart laying out the basis of its claims. Earlier this week, on a renewed motion to dismiss, Judge Smith held that “Adiscov has cured the fatal deficiencies which caused the court to dismiss its complaint in the first case.” Adiscov, L.L.C. v. Autonomy Corp., 2:11Cv201 (E.D.Va. April 26, 2011) (“Adiscov II”), which can be found here.
Specifically, Adiscov’s complaint met the pleading requirements of Rule 8 because it:
- “specifically identified the Autonomy’s products that it claims to infringe”
- “names the elements of Claim 1 of the ‘760 patent which are specifically infringed”
- states “in general how such products infringe the ‘760 patent.”
Judge Smith brushed aside Autonomy’s arguments that Adiscov’s allegations were overinclusive and conclusory, implying that Rule 8 only requires that a patentee set forth some theory of infringement. Beyond determining whether that theory is plausible, the District Court will not delve any further.
Adiscov II clarifies that Twombly/Iqbal and Rule 8 set a low bar to plead patent infringement that a patentee should be easily able to meet. In sum, a Complaint for patent infringement need only:
- assert that the plaintiff owns the patent
- identify the defendants
- assert that the defendant infringed the patent
- identify the accused products
- state in general how the accused products infringe
- identify the parts of patent law that are implicated.
As a result, dismissals under Twombly/Iqybal will be rare and short-lived, as any competent patent lawyer should be able to meet any grounds for dismissal in a re-filed Complaint.
