The Federal Circuit has held that the pleading standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal applies to indirect patent infringement claims, including those for induced infringement. See Superior Industries, LLC v. Thor Global Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1336-37. Thus, although a plaintiff need not "allege facts that prove all aspects of its claims, or at the very least make those claims probable," id. at 1341, an induced infringement claim will not survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss where the plaintiff "does not allege any facts to support a reasonable inference that [the defendant] specifically intended to induce infringement of the [patent-at-issue] or that it knew it had induced acts that constitute infringement."
The Federal Circuit has recently affirmed that the pleading standards set forth in Iqbal and Twombly apply to indirect patent infringement claims. In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1331-32, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (applying Iqbal and Twombly and holding that "we must look to Supreme Court precedent for guidance regarding the pleading requirements for claims of indirect infringement"); Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Global Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Paymetric argues that Protegrity's indirect infringement claims are wholly devoid of any factual allegations and must be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to the pleading standards as set forth in Iqbal and Twombly and as affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
"An 'offer for sale' sufficient to give rise to liability for patent infringement must meet the traditional contract law definition of that term." Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Global Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). To determine whether an action constitutes an offer, the Court applies general contract law—including the Uniform Commercial Code ("the UCC"), the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Corbin on Contracts, and federal case law on the topic.
When pleading a cause of action for indirect patent infringement, plaintiffs must satisfy the pleading requirements articulated by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its progeny. See In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1336; Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Global Enters. Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Form 18 does not determine the sufficiency of pleading for claims of indirect infringement. . . . Rather, the pleading requirements set forth in [Twombly] and [Iqbal] apply to such claims." (citations omitted)).
Form 18 requires only: (1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff owns the patent; (3) a statement that the defendant has been infringing the patent by making, selling, and using the device embodying the patent; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for an injunction and damages. See Superior Industries, LLC v. Thor Global Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1295 (Fed.Cir.2012); McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed.Cir.2007).
We apply our own authority and precedent when addressing questions of U.S. patentability. Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Glob. Enters. Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For example, in the context of claim preclusion in a patent case, this court looks to its own precedent to resolve "the operative facts involved in a claim for patent infringement." Id.
We have also held that allegations of induced or contributory infringement, which have additional elements not found in direct infringement claims, are not governed by Form 18. In re Bill of Lading , 681 F.3d at 1336 ; Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Glob. Enters. Ltd. , 700 F.3d 1287, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Form 18 does not determine the sufficiency of pleading for claims of indirect infringement.”). “Rather, the pleading requirements set forth in [Twombly and Iqbal ] apply” to claims of induced and contributory infringement. Superior , 700 F.3d at 1295. We have not, however, expressly considered whether claims of joint infringement should be measured by the sparse requirements of Form 18.
, it “must meet the traditional contract law definition of that term.” Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Glob. Enters. Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Glob. Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations and alterations omitted).
Accordingly, the Rossetti defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim of induced infringement is granted, with leave for plaintiff to replead additional facts to state a claim for inducement that show, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the Rossetti defendants specifically induced another to infringe plaintiff's patents. SeeSuperior Indus., LLC v. Thor Global Enters. Ltd. , 700 F.3d 1287, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of induced infringement claim where complaint fails to allege any facts from which the court could reasonably infer specific intent to induce infringement and knowledge that it induced acts that caused infringement). b. The Morgan Corporations