Aeritas, LLC v. Alaska Air Group, Inc.
893 F. Supp. 2d 680
D. Del.2012Background
- Aeritas, LLC sued Alaska Air Group, Inc. for infringement of patents 7,933,589 and 7,209,903.
- AAG moved to dismiss, and Aeritas amended the complaint, mooting the motion.
- Amendment asserts induced, contributory, and joint infringement with post-service activity and specific intent.
- Aeritas alleges post-service willful infringement but provides few prelitigation facts.
- Court applies Rule 12(b)(6) standard and analyzes indirect infringement, willfulness, and joint infringement theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indirect infringement plausibility post-service | Aeritas pleads induced and contributory infringement | AAG argues insufficiency under Twombly/Iqbal | Indirect infringement plausible at this stage |
| Willful infringement viability | Willfulness based on prelitigation knowledge | No prelitigation basis alleged; post-filing conduct not enough | Willfulness claim insufficient under Rule 8; dismissed |
| Joint infringement pleading sufficiency | Aeritas pleads mastermind control over infringement | Pleading too conclusory to show control | Joint infringement claim not pled with enough facts; dismissed? |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (limits Form 18 for indirect infringement; requires specific details for remaining prongs)
- Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Del. 2012) (pleading can meet Rule 8 by identifying patent, conduct, and notice)
- Seagate Tech., LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 497 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (willfulness requires objective recklessness based on totality of circumstances)
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (contextual totality of circumstances in willfulness)