Patent Harbor v. Dreamworks, et al., 6:11cv229 (E.D. Tex. 7/27/12)
Judge: John Love
Holding: Motion to Dismiss the Indirect Infringement Counts from the Complaint GRANTED IN PART
Defendants argued that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately plead any form of indirect infringement because: (1) it does not allege that Defendants had knowledge of the ‘514 patent or
the required specific intent and (2) it fails to identify a direct infringer. After reciting the applicable standards, Judge Love held that the complaint adequately identified a direct infringer, i.e. "contractors" and that the categories of products were sufficiently identified, i.e. "DVDs and Blu-Ray discs with content-addressing features" which he found was "more than adequate to comply with Form 18 because not only does it identify a general category of products analogous to “electric motors,” but it also identifies specific features of the accused products that embody the claimed invention, i.e., “content-addressing features (e.g., illustrated chapter/scene selection).”
Judge Love also held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded inducement, but that its pleadings with respect to contributory infringement were not sufficient to state a claim because "the Complaint fails to identify the components used in the infringing method and is devoid of any allegation from which the Court can plausibly infer that any components being sold have “no substantial non-infringing uses.” Patent Harbor was given 14 days to replead.