Minkus Electronic Display Systems Inc. v. Premier Retail Networks Inc., 1:10-cv-00666

Minkus filed a patent infringement suit on August 9, 2010 against 50 defendants and amended on September 24, 2010 asserting infringement of the '174 patent.
The '174 patent issued May 3, 1994 to Loren S. Minkus and was assigned to Minkus Electronic Display Systems on June 7, 2010, covering remotely controlled display systems and related feedback information.
Plaintiff alleges defendants’ products and systems infringe the '174 patent through direct, induced, and contributory infringement.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the court considers the sufficiency of indirect infringement pleadings.
The court applies Twombly/Iqbal standards to determine whether the complaint plausibly pleads knowledge and intent for indirect infringement.
The court ultimately grants defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with the scope limited to damages for time periods after a defendant’s first knowledge of the '174 patent unless amended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minkus plausibly pleaded indirect infringement	Minkus contends knowledge and intent are alleged sufficiently.	Defendants argue no facts show knowledge/intent; allegations are conclusory.	Dismissal granted for lack of plausible indirect infringement pleadings
Whether the complaint identifies products not capable of substantial non-infringing use to support contributory infringement	Entire product categories may infringe under Form 18 principles.	Need specific non-infringing use analysis for products identified.	Dismissal affirmed; some products properly identified as not capable of substantial non-infringing use is insufficient without knowledge pleadings
Whether Minkus adequately alleged the defendants’ knowledge at the time of infringement	Allegations of actual notice prior to filing show knowledge.	Conclusory knowledge allegations insufficient to infer knowledge at time of alleged acts.	Dismissal; knowledge allegations deemed insufficient to state a claim

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not just speculative)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (summary of factual allegations accepted as true for screening)
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (indirect infringement can be proven by circumstantial evidence)
Mallinckrodt v. E-Z-EM, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2009) (requires knowledge to plead contributory infringement)
Xpoint Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 730 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2010) (specific knowledge allegations are necessary)
Lucent Techs. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (knowledge and intent in inducement need pleaded facts)
Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (requires specific intent to induce infringement)