4 F. Supp. 3d 797
E.D. Va.2014Background
- Macronix sued Spansion for infringement of seven patents; initial complaint tracked Form 18 and was found deficient under Twombly/Iqbal; Court ordered an amended complaint (November 1 Order).
- Macronix filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting direct infringement (literal and doctrine of equivalents) and in some counts willful infringement; FAC largely parrots claim language.
- Spansion moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing FAC fails Twombly/Iqbal for direct infringement and inadequately alleges induced, contributory, and willful infringement.
- Court reviewed applicability of Twombly/Iqbal to patent complaints and rejected the view that Form 18/Form 84 insulates patent complaints from the plausibility standard.
- Court held FAC fails to plead direct infringement (both literal and equivalents) with the required factual detail, but will allow leave to amend; indirect-infringement dismissal denied as moot because plaintiff disavowed those claims; willfulness sufficiently alleged for three counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Twombly/Iqbal to patent complaints | Form 18 under Rule 84 suffices; no heightened pleading required | Twombly/Iqbal require plausibility for all federal claims, including patent cases | Twombly/Iqbal govern patent complaints; Form 18 does not exempt them |
| Sufficiency of direct infringement pleading (literal) | FAC alleges each claim element is infringed (using claim language) | FAC lacks factual allegations showing how accused products meet claim elements | Direct-infringement claims dismissed for failing plausibility/November 1 Order; leave to amend granted |
| Sufficiency of infringement under doctrine of equivalents | FAC asserts equivalents in conclusory form | Equivalents allegations must meet plausibility standard with factual context | Equivalents claims dismissed as conclusory; must be pleaded with factual detail on remand |
| Induced/contributory infringement and willfulness | Plaintiff says FAC asserts only direct infringement; limited willfulness alleged for 3 patents | Spansion: FAC fails to plead knowledge/specific intent for inducement, lack of substantial non-infringing uses for contributory, and pre-suit knowledge for willfulness | Indirect-infringement dismissal denied as moot (plaintiff disavows those claims); willfulness adequately pleaded for three counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading supplants Conley notice pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleadings must contain factual content allowing court to infer liability)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (discussed as the pre-Twombly standard supplanted by Twombly)
- In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir.) (addressed interaction of Form 18/Rule 84 with Twombly/Iqbal)
- McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir.) (held a Form 18 complaint sufficient; discussed and critiqued)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir.) (explains Twombly/Iqbal impose stricter pleading standard)
- Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186 (4th Cir.) (Rule 8 requires showing entitlement to relief beyond labels and conclusions)
- C & F Packing Co., Inc. v. IBP, Inc., 224 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir.) (procedural Rule 12(b)(6) assessed under regional circuit law)