Hand Held Products Inc v. Code Corporation, The
2:17-cv-00167
D.S.C.Jun 9, 2017Background
- Honeywell and Code litigate over alleged infringement of Honeywell patents covering barcode scanners.
- Honeywell alleges Code's CR2600 infringes six Honeywell patents; Code contends several patents expire or redesigns distinguish it.
- Honeywell moved to dismiss Code's counterclaims and strike certain affirmative defenses; Code answered with extensive counterclaims.
- Court considers Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(f) motions and analyzes patent-specific pleading standards post-Twombly/Iqbal.
- Court ultimately denies Honeywell's motion to dismiss Code's invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims and denies striking affirmative defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Code's invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims survive? | Honeywell argues they fail under Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards. | Code contends sufficient factual support and early contentions satisfy pleading requirements. | Denied; adequately pleaded. |
| Are state-law claims preempted by the Patent Act? | Preemption bars state-law claims arising from patent infringement communications. | Preemption limited to patent-rights communications; other conduct not preempted. | Not preempted; state-law claims allowed. |
| Is Noerr-Pennington applicable to Lanham Act counterclaim? | Barred as protected petitioning activity. | Noerr-Pennington does not shield false statements about competition. | Not barred; Lanham Act claim permissible. |
| Should Twombly/Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses? | Yes; defenses must meet heightened pleading standard. | No; defenses need not meet Twombly/Iqbal standard. | Twombly/Iqbal do not apply to affirmative defenses. |
| Should certain affirmative defenses be struck under Rule 12(f)? | Three defenses are insufficient and should be stricken. | Defenses provide fair notice and are not unworthy as defenses. | Denied; defenses remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1992) (pleading standard requires plausible claims; not a mere possibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (pleading must show facial plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., 362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (patent-law preempts state-law liability for good-faith infringement communications)
- Virginia Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patentee may warn about infringement without illegal conduct)
- Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 227 U.S. 8 (1913) (patents would have little value if infringement could not be addressed in courts)
- Proff Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (S. Ct. 1993) (bad-faith standard for preemption analysis)