American GNC Corporation v. LG Electronics Inc.
3:17-cv-01090
S.D. Cal.Oct 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiff American GNC Corp. sued LG Electronics entities for alleged infringement of seven patents covering navigation/related technologies, accusing various mobile devices of infringing.
- Defendants answered and asserted seven affirmative defenses, including non-infringement, invalidity, and a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 288.
- Plaintiff moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) to strike the second (non-infringement), third (invalidity), and seventh (§ 288) affirmative defenses.
- Defendants opposed striking the second and third defenses, but withdrew the seventh.
- The court evaluated the appropriate pleading standard for affirmative defenses (Twombly/Iqbal plausibility vs. Wyshak fair-notice) and applied the Wyshak fair-notice standard.
- Ruling: the court denied the motion to strike the second and third defenses (finding they give fair notice) and granted the motion as to the seventh defense (struck without prejudice) as Defendants withdrew it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper pleading standard for affirmative defenses | Twombly/Iqbal plausibility should apply | Wyshak fair-notice standard governs | Court applied Wyshak fair-notice standard |
| Sufficiency of non-infringement defense (2nd) | Defense is boilerplate, lacks facts and notice | Denial of infringement provides fair notice; discovery will develop facts | Denied motion to strike; defense gives fair notice |
| Sufficiency of invalidity defense (3rd) | References are too vague and implausible, lacking facts for several patents | Statutory references and cited materials give fair notice of anticipated invalidity theories | Denied motion to strike; defense gives fair notice |
| Seventh defense (§ 288) | Lacks factual or legal basis | Defendant withdrew the defense | Granted motion to strike (defense withdrawn); struck without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983) (purpose of Rule 12(f) is to avoid litigation of spurious issues).
- Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (motions to strike are disfavored).
- Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (motion to strike should be denied if matter could bear on litigation).
- Levin–Richmond Terminal Corp. v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local 10, 751 F. Supp. 1373 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (pleading defenses should be stricken only if they could never succeed).
- In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (pleadings viewed in light most favorable to pleader).
- Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirmative defenses are sufficient if they give plaintiff fair notice).
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard for claims: plausibility).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (clarified Twombly plausibility framework).