Indirect infringement claims are dismissed with leave to amend
Xpoint Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., Civ. No.09-628-SLR, August 12, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim are granted in part and denied in part. The indirect infringement claims are dismissed, but the direct infringement claims survive. The motion to dismiss willfulness claim for lack of detail was denied.
McZeal held that for a direct infringement claim the plaintiff need plead only (1) jurisdiction); (2) ownership; (3) defendant has been infringing by “making, selling, and using [the device] embodying the patent; (4) notice; and (5) demand for injunction and damages.” Defendants argue that the complaint does not meet the third element in that it provides no detail but states defendants infringe by “making, selling, and using electric motors that embody the patented invention.” The court holds it is not necessary to identify specific products, i.e. model names, but must identify a general category of products. General categories of accused products – i.e. processors, chipsets and/or motherboards – are alleged with respect to specific defendants. The indirect infringement claims are dismissed with respect to certain defendants because the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts that would allow the court to infer that defendants had any knowledge of the patent-in-suit at the time they were committing the allegedly infringing activities. The motion was denied with respect to another defendant since detailed factual assertions allege the requisite knowledge. Mere recitation of the elements of indirect infringement is insufficient. Motion to dismiss willfulness claim for lack of detail was denied.
