Judge: Rodney Gilstrap
Holding: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss GRANTED in part.
First of all, my three boys agree that Brain Damage Films is the coolest name they've ever heard of, and didn't realize it was this much fun to be a lawyer.
Back to the merits, this was a 12(b)(6) motion seeking to dismiss the complaint's direct, indirect and willful infringement claims. (You can probably see the ruling coming, can't you?) With respect to direct infringement, Judge Gilstrap held that the Complaint’s description of “videos indexed with images” is analogous to the “electric motors” example provided by Form 18 and was therefore sufficient, despite the fact that it did not identify a specific product.
Of course it alwasy gets problematic at the indirect infringement stage because as the Court noted, Form 18 doesn't apply. Judge Gilstrap concluded that the allegations regarding induced infringement were sufficient, but that the allegations with regard to contributory infringement were not. "In this case," he wrote, "the Complaint does not identify the components used in the infringing method, nor does it allege any facts adequate for the Court to find an inference that such components have no substantial non-infringing uses." Accordingly the motion was granted as to the contributory infringement claim, with leave to replead within 14 days.
With respect to willful infringement, the Court noted that at the pleading stage, the Plaintiff must establish a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement, but that the plaintiff's complaint in this case "does not allege any particular facts that would demonstrate InMotion’s good faith basis for alleging willful infringement." Accordingly, he granted the motion to dismiss the willful infringement allegations, but noted that "[s]hould factual support for InMotion’s willful infringement claims be uncovered during the course of discovery, InMotion is entitled to move the Court for leave to supplement in its Complaint in this regard, at that time."