Patent Complaint Does Not Have to Identify Infringing Activity
This post has been viewed 2,610 times.
The proper use of a sample complaint form is sufficient for pleading patent infringement, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court noted that the form complaint does not require the plaintiff to identify the infringing device to successfully state a claim for patent infringement when the plaintiff does not have the ability to identify the infringing device or activity. K-Tech Telecommunications Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Inc. [PDF].
Standard for Pleading Patent Infringement
In K-Tech, the plaintiff K-Tech filed complaints for patent infringement against DirecTV and Time Warner Cable (Time Warner). The complaints alleged that Time Warner and DirecTV infringed K-Tech’s patents directed to identifying systems and methods for modifying a major channel number, a minor channel number, and/or a carrier frequency to identify a television program. The FCC requires that all digital television signals define the major channel number, minor channel number, and a carrier frequency included in a digital television signal. Time Warner and DirecTV identify programs broadcast over their cable or satellite systems with a channel number in accordance with the FCC requirements. K-Tech alleged that Time Warner and DirecTV utilize the methods and systems protected by the K-Tech patents to update the digital signals they receive.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints on the grounds that they lacked sufficient specificity to state a cause of action for direct patent infringement. The district court dismissed the complaints, stating that K-Tech failed to identify the devices and the methods the defendants were using that were protected by the asserted patents. K-Tech appealed to the Federal Circuit for review. K-Tech contended that the complaints complied with Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the sample complaint for direct patent infringement.
The Federal Circuit analyzed whether Form 18 satisfies the standards set forth in Rules8 and 12(b)(6) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Civil Rules require “only a plausible ‘short and plain’ statement of the plaintiff’s claim.” The court, citing the 2007 decision, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly [PDF], noted that the plausibility standard is met where “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Citing the 2009 decision, Ashcroft v. Iqbal [PDF], the court noted that “specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
Read original articleTags: DirecTV, Time Warner
