Klausner Technologies v. Oracle Corp., 6:11cv556 (9/10/12)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Holding: Motion to Dismiss GRANTED IN PART
Hard to believe, but there is yet another opinion on a motion to dismiss citing Twombly this week - this time from Judge Davis. To cut to the chase, Judge Davis held that both the plaintiff's direct and inducing infringement allegations were insufficient, but gave two weeks for the plaintiff to replead.
With respect to the allegations of direct infringement, Judge Davis held that they did not adhere to Form 18 because they did not identify any accused products, services, methods, or other infringing acts for the patent-in suit. "While Klausner alleges each Defendant provides a “Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) messaging service having some . . . visual voicemail capabilities,” Klausner failed to assert how these products were infringing, and the product identification is not specific to any particular Defendant," thus providing an example of when an identification of the accused activitiy isn't sufficiently like the "electric motors" identified in Form 18.
As to the indirect infringement, Judge Davis held that the allegations failed to state a claim that was plausible on its face. "In order to properly state a claim for indirect infringement, Klausner must include some factual support that would allow this Court “to draw [a] reasonable inference that [Oracle] is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Here, while Klausner asserts Oracle “contributed to the infringement and induced others to infringe the ‘576 Patent,” it fails to provide any factual support for these allegations."
From Docket Navigator.