Patent Infringement Does Not Required Detailed Factual Pleadings Beyond Identification of Patent & Accused Products

Cascades AV LLC v. Evertz Microsystems Ltd., No. 17 C 7881, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2019) (Durkin, J.). Judge Durkin denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s patent infrignement claims in this patent case involving lip-synching patents and defendant Everetz’s accused fingerprint reading systems. Direct Infringement Citing Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Court held that specific facts were not necessary to plead infringement. Fair notice only required identification of the patents and a claim, even a general one, that they infringed an identified product. Plaintiff Cascades – a predecessor entity to J. Carl Cooper – went beyond that making specific allegations regarding each element of the asserted claims. Indirect & Willful Infringement Both indirect and willful infringement required knowledge of the patents. Cascade claimed that it put Evertz on notice…

Read more detail on Recent Copyright posts –

Related news:

This entry was posted in Copyright Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply