Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Global Enters. Ltd.

61 Citing cases

  1. Broadband Itv, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc.

    Civ. No. 14-00169 ACK-RLP (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    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."

  2. Protegrity Corp. v. Paymetric, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-01549 (VLB) (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Granting motion to dismiss where the complaint failed "to allege any facts regarding the customers, clients, or suppliers who [defendant] allegedly induced to infringe [plaintiff's] patents, and [was] devoid of a single fact to raise the reasonable inference that the [d]efendant knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's 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.

  3. Minitube of Am., Inc. v. Reprod. Provisions, LLC

    Case No. 13-CV-685-JPS (E.D. Wis. May. 1, 2014)

    "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.

  4. Silver State Intellectual Techs., Inc. v. Foursquare Labs, Inc.

    Case No.: 2:12-cv-01308-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. Sep. 26, 2013)

    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)).

  5. Gradient Enters., Inc. v. Skype Techs. S.A.

    932 F. Supp. 2d 447 (W.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Finding Twombly standard does not apply to direct infringement claims, but does apply to indirect infringement claims

    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).

  6. Inguran, LLC v. ABS Glob.

    72 F.4th 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    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.

  7. Lyda v. CBS Corp.

    838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 62 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the dismissal of a complaint alleging joint infringement because the plaintiff had not "set forth any factual allegations in support of his assertion that [the defendant] directed or controlled the independent contractors"

    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.

  8. Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Co.

    4:22-CV-04112-KES (D.S.D. Jun. 21, 2023)

    , 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).

  9. Warming Trends LLC v. Stone

    Civil 19-cv-03027-PAB-STV (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2023)

    Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Glob. Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations and alterations omitted).

  10. Uni-Sys., LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, Inc.

    350 F. Supp. 3d 143 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)   Cited 35 times
    Finding allegations that a defendant, inter alia, "encouraged and facilitated" the acquisition of trade secrets to be "more than sufficient to allege that [he] was a participant, if not the leader in a coordinated effort to misappropriate plaintiff's trade secrets"

    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