Cat Claws Inc v. Big Lots Stores Inc
4:16-cv-00733
E.D. Ark.Jun 13, 2017Background
- Cat Claws sells feline scratching pads in the United States under the Cat Claws trademark.
- Big Lots allegedly sold Chinese-made products bearing the Cat Claws mark since March 2008 that resemble Cat Claws’s patented pads.
- Cat Claws asserts patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition under Counts I, III, and IV.
- Count II alleges induced patent infringement by a second defendant, with a single unnamed defendant (the first defendant) allegedly infringing.
- Big Lots moves to dismiss Count II under Rule 12(b)(6); Cat Claws contends Big Lots induced infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Count II plead induced infringement adequately? | Cat Claws asserts induced infringement by a second defendant. | Big Lots argues Count II lacks specific intent and actionable detail. | Count II dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Are Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards satisfied for Rule 12(b)(6)? | Plaintiff argues factual allegations support plausibility. | Defendant contends allegations are conclusory and not plausible. | Pleading insufficient; standard met for dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1991) (sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (rejection of conclusory allegations; plausibility requirement)
- In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (induced infringement requires specific intent and knowledge)