Judge: Rodney Gilstrap
Holding: Motion to Dismiss GRANTED IN PART
Two weeks ago, I posted on Judge Gilstrap's ruling in the Inmotion case denying a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for direct or induced infringement, but granting the motion as to the contributory and willful infringement allegations.
Earlier this week, Judge Gilstrap ruled on a similar motion (what are the odds there would be two motions on this subject? Wow.) He once again denied the motion as to the direct infringement allegations, finding that the plaintiff had carried his burden under In re Bill of Lading to satisfy the requirements of Rule 18 (there's a pun in there somewhere - I just know it), but in this case found that the contributory infringement allegations were insufficient, but the inducing were okay. The Court held that “to state a claim [in the Fifth Circuit] for indirect infringement … a plaintiff need not identify a specific direct infringer if it pleads facts sufficient to allow an inference that at least one direct infringer exists” and that in this case the plaintiff generically identified direct infringers as the “end users" of the products, which Judge Gilstrap has previously held was sufficient to pass muster (or maybe to deem the "Bill of Lading" signed? I may need to work on that one a bit more.)
As with Inmotion, the Court gave the plaintiff two weeks to replead the allegations found to be insufficient. Interestingly (in a morbid sort of way) the opinion concluded with a statement that "the authority supplied in Defendant’s Supplemental Authority brief predates the Federal Circuit’s In re Bill of Lading decision and is therefore moot," and accordingly denied the motion to strike.
From Docket Navigator.