Disc Disease Solutions Inc. v. Vgh Solutions, Inc., 888 F.3d 1256

Disc Disease Solutions sued VGH Solutions alleging infringement of two patents (U.S. Pat. No. 8,012,113 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,618,509) for inflatable spinal brace products, identifying three accused products and attaching the patents and product photos to the complaint.
The complaint was filed Nov. 30, 2015; the next day (Dec. 1, 2015) Rule 84 and Form 18 were abrogated.
VGH moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court applied the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard and dismissed with prejudice, finding the complaint did not explain how the accused products met patent claim elements.
Disc Disease moved for reconsideration and sought leave to file a first amended complaint (attached to its motion) with more detailed infringement analysis; the district court denied relief and confirmed dismissal with prejudice.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded the pleadings were sufficient under Iqbal/Twombly; it reversed the 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The court did not reach other issues (e.g., whether Form 18 still governed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff's infringement allegations satisfied the pleading standard	Disc Disease: complaint (filed Nov. 30) and attachments gave fair notice and met Form 18 and, in any event, were plausible under Iqbal/Twombly	VGH: the complaint’s boilerplate allegations ("each and every element") failed to show plausibly how products infringe under Iqbal/Twombly	The Federal Circuit: allegations (patents attached, accused products identified and pictured, explicit claim-level allegation) were sufficient under Iqbal/Twombly; dismissal was erroneous
Whether dismissal with prejudice and denial of leave to amend was proper	Disc Disease: asked to amend and argued intervening abrogation of Form 18 justified reconsideration and opportunity to amend	VGH: district court discretion to dismiss for failure to plead plausibly and to deny leave where amendment not timely sought	Court reversed 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded; did not decide all issues about Form 18 or separately decide propriety of denying leave to amend on other grounds

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applied Twombly plausibility framework)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (notice-pleading principles)
In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discussing Form 18 as previously sufficient for pleading direct patent infringement)
Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541 (11th Cir. 2002) (district court not required to grant leave to amend sua sponte where no motion was filed)
Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (declining to resolve any difference between Form 18 and Iqbal/Twombly where complaint met Iqbal/Twombly)
Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (procedural standard: review of procedural issues follows regional circuit law)
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissal for failure to state a claim reviewed de novo)