Upload
alan-engle
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
1/12
TheConfusingandOftenContradictoryWorldofPleadingDefensesand
CounterclaimsinPatentCases
ByConradGosenandTashaFrancis,Ph.D.
Defendantsseekingtopleadaffirmativedefensesandcounterclaimsinpatentcasesfacea
confusingworldofinconsistentpleadingstandardsandcontradictoryapplicationsofthosestandards.
CourtsgenerallyagreethatthestandardssetforthinTwombly1andIqbal2applytocounterclaimsby
infringementdefendants,buttheapplicationoftheTwombly/Iqbalstandardtocounterclaimsvaries
widelyfromcourttocourt. Thereislessclarityregardingwhichpleadingstandardsshouldapplyto
affirmativedefenses.
District
courts
across
the
country
have
adopted
several
different
(and
often
conflicting)standardsandrulesfordeterminingthesufficiencyofsuchpleadings. Furthermore,evenin
situationswherecourtspurporttouseasimilarstandardforpleadingaffirmativedefenses,the
applicationofthesestandardsremainsverycourtdeterminative.
Thesituationfacedbydefendantsismarkedlydifferentthanthatofpatentplaintiffs.
Defendantsusuallymustasserttheirdefensesandcounterclaimswithin21daysofbeingservedwitha
complaint3,andthesepleadingsareoftenheldtotheplausiblefactualallegationstandardofTwombly
andIqbal. Bycontrast,theFederalCircuithasclearlyestablishedthatpatentplaintiffsdonotneedto
meettheTwombly/Iqbalstandardforpleadingpatentinfringement.4 Instead,plaintiffsneedonly
providetheinformationspecifiedinForm18oftheAppendixtotheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure
(FRCP),whichrequireslessinformation.5 Recentpatentreformbillshaveaddressedpleadingstandards
inpatentcases,butsucheffortshavefocusedonraisingthestandardsforplaintiffs,ratherthan
clarifyingthestandardsforaccusedinfringers.
1BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,127S.Ct.1955,1964(2007).
2Ashcroftv.Iqbal,129S.Ct.1937,1941(2009).
3Fed.R.Civ.P.12. Though,defendantsoftenobtainextensions.
4InreBillofLadingTransmission&ProcessingSys.PatentLitig.,681F.3d1323,1334(Fed.Cir.2012).
5Form18appliestoapleadingfordirectinfringement.
Copyright 2015. Conrad Gosen and Tasha Francis, Ph.D. First published 06/25/15 IPO Law Journ
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
2/12
Thus,giventhelackofanyforthcomingguidanceontheissuesofpleadingaffirmativedefenses
andcounterclaims,uponbeingservedwithacomplaintforpatentinfringement,whatisanaccused
infringertodo? Thisarticleprovidesanoverviewofthecurrentlawofpleadingrequirementsinpatent
casesandcontainsrecommendationsforpractitionersfacedwiththeseissues.
I. Background
Rule8oftheFRCPgovernsthepleadingstandardsinFederalCases. Rule8(a)(2)statesthata
complaintmustcontainashortandplainstatementoftheclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledto
relief.6 TheSupremeCourthasexaminedandclarifiedthestandardsetforthinRule8(a)(2)inTwombly
andIqbal. TheCourtclarifiedtheproperapplicationofRule8,statingthatacomplainantmustplead
factsthatplausiblygiverisetoanentitlementtorelief.7 Inotherwords,acomplainantmustdomore
thanprovidemereconclusoryallegations.
Rule8(c)governsthestandardsforpleadingaffirmativedefensesandspecifiesthat[i]n
respondingtoapleading,apartymustaffirmativelystateanyavoidanceoraffirmativedefense.8 The
SupremeCourtsTwomblyandIqbaldecisionsdidnotaddressRule8(c). However,othercourtshave
recognizedthatRule8(c)setsalowerstandardthanthatofTwomblyandIqbal. Forexample,inTyco
FireProds.LPv.VictaulicCo.,777F.Supp.2d893,900(E.D.Pa.2011),thejudgereasonedthatinlightof
thedifferencesbetweenRules8(a)and8(c),TwomblyandIqbaldonotapplytoaffirmativedefenses. As
such,theCourtconcluded[a]naffirmativedefenseneednotbeplausibletosurvive;itmustmerely
providefairnoticeoftheissueinvolved.9 Similarly,inaDistrictofNevadacase,theCourt(citingTyco)
cametotheconclusionthataffirmativedefensesneednotcontainfactsmakingthedefenseplausible,
asunderIqbal....10
6Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2).
7Iqbal,129S.Ct.1941.
8Fed.R.Civ.P.8(c).
9Id.
10RockwellAutomation,Inc.v.BeckhoffAutomation,LLC,23F.Supp.3d1236,124142(D.Nev.2014).
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
3/12
TheTwomblyandIqbaldecisionsledtoconfusioninpatentcasesbecauseRule84oftheFederal
RulesofCivilProcedurestatesthattheformsintheAppendixsufficeundertheserulesandillustrate
thesimplicityandbrevitythattheserulescontemplate.11 OneoftheForms,Form18,containsan
exampleofaComplaintforPatentInfringement. AsdescribedbytheFederalCircuit,Form18
requires:
(1)anallegationofjurisdiction;(2)astatementthattheplaintiffownsthepatent;(3)a
statementthatdefendanthasbeen infringingthepatentbymaking,selling,andusing
[the device] embodying the patent; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the
defendantnoticeofitsinfringement;and(5)ademandforaninjunctionanddamages.12
SeveralpartiesallegedthattheinformationcontainedinForm18wouldbeinsufficienttostate
aplausibleclaimunderthe
Twombly/Iqbalstandard. Inresponse,theFederalCircuitheldthatthe
informationspecifiedinForm18issufficienttostateaclaimforpatentinfringementinacomplaint,
evenifitmaynotmeetTwombly/Iqbal.13 TheFederalCircuithasexplainedthatForm18andthe
FederalRulesofCivilProceduredonotrequireaplaintifftopleadfactsestablishingthateachelementof
anassertedclaimismet. Indeed,aplaintiffneednotevenidentifywhichclaimsitassertsarebeing
infringed.14
Form18governspleadingstandardsforpatentcomplaints,butdoesnotgovernthestandards
forpleadingaffirmativedefensesorcounterclaimsbroughtinresponsetoacomplaint. Districtcourts
forthemostpartagreethattheTwombly/Iqbalstandardgovernscounterclaims. However,thereis
disagreement,evenbetweenjudgesinthesameDistrict,astothelevelofspecificityrequiredtomeet
thestandardofTwombly/Iqbalincounterclaims(particularlyforcounterclaimsofnoninfringementor
11Fed.R.Civ.P.84.
12SeeInreBillofLadingTransmission&ProcessingSys.PatentLitig.,681F.3d1323(Fed.Cir.2012).
13Id.1334(Accordingly,totheextentthepartiesarguethatTwomblyanditsprogenyconflictwiththeForms...,
theFormscontrol...Thus,whetherR+Lsamendedcomplaintsadequatelypleaddirectinfringementistobe
measuredbythespecificityrequiredbyForm18.).14
Id.at1335.
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
4/12
invalidity).15 Thereisevenlessagreementastothepleadingstandardthatappliestoaffirmative
defenses. JudgesintheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,SouthernDistrictofTexas,andNorthernDistrict
ofIllinoishaveheldthattheTwombly/Iqbalstandardappliestoaffirmativedefenses.16 Bycontrast,
judgesintheEasternDistrictofPennsylvania,DistrictofNevada,andDistrictofArizonahaveheldthat
theTwombly/Iqbalstandarddoesnotapplytoaffirmativedefenses.17
II. AConfusingLandscape
Accusedinfringersgenerallyhave21daystoanalyzeandpleadanycounterclaims. Additionally,
discoveryhasnotbegunandtheaccusedinfringermayhavelittleinformationregardingtheclaimsthey
maywanttoassert. Furthermore,theaccusedinfringermustalsoanalyzeanddecideonanyaffirmative
defensestheywishtoplead. Confrontedwiththesetimepressures,accusedinfringersmustalsodeal
withanunsettledlegallandscapegoverningthesepleadings.
A. PleadingCounterclaims
DistrictcourtshavegenerallyagreedthattheTwombly/Iqbalstandardappliesto
counterclaims.18 Incomingtothisconclusion,CourtshavepointedtotheexpresslanguageofRule
8(a)(2)andthefactthatcounterclaimsarethemselvescomplaints. However,theapplicationofthe
Twombly/Iqbalstandardtocounterclaimsparticularlydeclaratoryjudgmentcounterclaimsfor
noninfringementorinvalidityvarieswidely.
15CompareCryoLife,Inc.v.C.R.Bard,Inc.,2015WL1069397,*4(D.Del.Mar.10,2015)(findingarelativelybare
bonescounterclaimsufficientlyplead)withEMCCorp.v.Zerto,Inc.,2014WL3809365,*1*2(D.Del.July31,2014)
(findingrelativelybarebonespleadinginsufficientlyplead).16
See,
e.g.,BlackBerry
Limited
v.
Typo
Products
LLC,2014WL1867009,*5(N.D.Cal.May8,2014);Oleksy
v.
GeneralElec.Co.,2013WL3233259,*17*18(N.D.Ill.June26,2013);Moodyv.AquaLeisureIntern.,2011WL
2604840,*2*3(S.D.Tex.Jun.30,2011).17
See,e.g.,TycoFireProds.LPv.VictaulicCo.,777F.Supp.2d893,900(E.D.Penn.2011);RockwellAutomation,
Inc.23F.Supp.3dat124142;VercoDecking,Inc.v.ConsolidatedSystems,Inc.,2013WL6844106,*4*5(D.Ariz.
Dec.23,2013).18
ButseeElanPharm.Int'lLtd.v.LupinLtd.,2010WL1372316,at*5(D.N.J.Mar.31,2010);Teirsteinv.AGAMed.
Corp.,2009WL704138,at*5(E.D.Tex.Mar.16,2009);MicrosoftCorp.v.PhoenixSolutions,Inc.,741F.Supp.2d
1156,1159(C.D.Cal.2010);Pfizer,Inc.v.Apotex,Inc.,726F.Supp.2d921,93738(N.D.Ill.2010).
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
5/12
Forexample,inSenju19,JudgeRobinsonintheDistrictofDelawareexplainedthatthe
Twombly/IqbalstandardshouldapplytocounterclaimseventhoughForm18requiresalowerstandard
forplaintiffs. JudgeRobinsonexplained,that
theDistrictofDelawarehasnotadoptedany localpatentrulesregardingthepleading
standard for invalidity counterclaims or requiring that factual contentions be served
promptlyafteracounterclaimofinvalidityisadvanced. Moreover,Form18stillrequires
that some factual underpinning be presented, a factual underpinning absent from
Apotex'spleading. Mostsignificantly,thefactthatForm18(ratherthanTwomblyand
Iqbal)remainsthestandardforpleadinginfringementclaimsisaninsufficientjustification
fordeviatingfromTwomblyandIqbalforpleadingothercausesofaction.20
OtherjudgeshavecometosimilarconclusionsandheldTwombly/Iqbaltoapplyto
counterclaimsofnoninfringementorinvalidity.21
However,despitegeneralagreementthatTwombly/Iqbalappliestocounterclaims,courtsvary
intheirapplicationofthestandardtocounterclaims. Somecourtshavefoundbarebonespleadings
sufficient,evenundertheTwombly/Iqbalstandard,whileothershavenot.
InCryoLife22,forexample,theCourtfoundCryoLifesrelativelybarebonespleadingsofinvalidity
andnoninfringementmettheTwombly/Iqbalstandard. Initscounterclaimofinvalidity,CryoLifesimply
statedthe
claims
were
invalid
for
failure
to
comply
with
one
or
more
of
the
conditions
for
patentability
setforthinTitle35oftheUnitedStatesCode,including,butnotlimitedto,35U.S.C.102and/or
103.23 CryoLifeidentifiedthreepiecesofpriorarttosupportits102/103invaliditychallengeand
providednofurthercommentary. Basedonthissimplepleading,theCourtconcludedCryoLife
sufficientlypleadedinvalidity. Similarly,inassertingacounterclaimofnoninfringement,theCourt
foundCryoLifespleadingthat[t]heuse,offerforsale,and/orsaleofCryoLife'sPerClotproductshas
19SenjuPharm.Co.,Ltd.v.Apotex,Inc.,921F.Supp.2d297,30203(D.Del.2013).
20Id.
21See,e.g.,DeerpointGroup,Inc.v.AcquaConcepts,Inc.,2014WL7178210,*4*5(E.D.Cal.Dec.16,2014);Wi3,
Inc.v.ActiontecElectronics,Inc.,2014WL6627582,*2*4(W.D.N.Y.Nov.21,2014);FitnessAnywhereLLCv.Woss
EnterprisesLLC,2014WL4802432,*2*3(N.D.Cal.Sept.26,2014).22
CryoLife,Inc.,2015WL1069397at*4.23
Id.
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
6/12
notinfringed,doesnotinfringe,andwouldnot,whenmarketedandsold,directlyorindirectlyinfringe
anyvalidclaimofthe'461patent,eitherliterallyorunderthedoctrineofequivalentssufficientwhen
supplementedbyCryoLife'sstatementthattheproductsbehaveinuselikethepriorartwhichwas
arguedbythepatenteetobefundamentallydifferentduringprosecution.24
Similarly,inFitness
Anywhere25,theCourtfoundDefendantssimpleallegationthatthe
AssertedPatentsareinvalidforfailingtocomplywiththespecificstatutorysubpartsof101,102,103
and/or112sufficientwhere(1)Defendantdidnotassertallgroundsofinvalidityandunenforceability
underthePatentActand(2)Defendantexplainedthesegroundsofinvalidityindetailintheir
affirmativedefenses.26
Bycontrast,othercourtshavedismissedmoredetailedpleadingsasinsufficientunder
Twombly/Iqbal. Forexample,inBecoDairyAutomation,Inc.27,theCourtdismissedBecos
counterclaimsalleginginvalidityunderfourseparatestatutes,eventhoughBecoscounterclaimsset
forthnumerousandindependentgroundsforinvalidatingpatentclaims(e.g.,priorpublicuse,prior
offertosell,priorprintedpublication,abandonment,andothers).28 TheCourtfoundthecounterclaims
voidof
factual
underpinnings
and
held
that
because
Beco
failed
to
identify
facts
necessary
to
sustain
recoveryundersomeviablelegaltheory,itsclaimswerenotplausible.29
Toconfoundmattersevenfurther,insomeinstances,courtshavefoundthatbarebones
counterclaimsareinsufficientevenunderalowerversionofTwombly/Iqbal. Forexample,inEMCCorp.
v.
Zerto,
Inc.30,theDistrictofDelawareheldthatcounterclaimsofinvaliditydonotneeddetailed
24Id.
25FitnessAnywhereLLC,2014WL4802432.
26Id.*2.
27BecoDairyAutomation,Inc.v.GlobalTechSys.,Inc.,2015WL925588(E.D.Cal.Mar.3,2015).
28Id.*9.
29Id.*4.
30EMCCorp.2014WL3809365.
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
7/12
factualallegationstosatisfyTwombly/Iqbal.31 Nonetheless,theCourtfoundthatZertoscounterclaims
ofinvalidity,whichrecited:[o]neormoreclaims...isinvalidforfailuretocomplywiththeconditions
forpatentabilityspecifiedbyTitle35oftheUnitedStatesCode,includingwithoutlimitation35U.S.C.
101,102,103and112lackedsufficientfactualmattertosatisfythepleadingstandardsofRule8.32
The
Courtfoundthesebareboneslegalconclusionsdevoidofanysupportingfactualallegations.33
However,totheextentthatcourtshavefoundcounterclaimpleadingsinsufficientforfailureto
meetTwombly/Iqbal,theygenerallyhavegrantedleavetoamend.34
B. PleadingAffirmativeDefenses
Unlikecounterclaims,wherethereexistsageneralconsensusofwhatstandardapplies,thereis
cleardisagreementastowhethertheTwombly/Iqbalstandardappliestopleadingaffirmativedefenses.
TheNorthernDistrictofCaliforniaandtheNorthernDistrictofIllinoishaveheldthatthe
pleadingstandardofTwombly/Iqbalapplies. Incomingtothisconclusion,courtshavereliedonthe
similaritybetweenaffirmativedefensepleadingsandcounterclaimpleadings,particularlyfor
noninfringementandinvaliditydefenses. Courtshavealsopointedtothepresenceorlackoflocal
patentruleswhichwouldrequireotherdisclosuresofthebasisforinvalidityornoninfringement
positions.
Forexample,intheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,inOleksy
v.
Gen.
Elec.
Co.,theCourtexplained
itsreasonforapplyingtheTwombly/Iqbalstandardtoaffirmativedefenses.35 Inthiscase,GEasserted
theaffirmativedefensethatthepatenttheywereaccusedofinfringingwasinvalidbasedonprioruse.
GEalsoassertedacounterclaimforadeclaratoryjudgmentthatthepatentwasinvalidbasedonprior
usebasedlargelyonthesamefacts. TheCourtnotedthisactionwasillustrativeofpotentialproblems
31Id.*2.
32Id.
33Id.
34Seee.g.,EMCCorp.,2014WL3809365,at*4(grantingleavetoamend);BecoDairyAutomation,Inc.2015WL
925588,at*4;GELightingSolutions,LLCv.LightsofAm.,Inc.,2013WL1874855,at*1(N.D.OhioMay3,2013).35
Oleksyv.Gen.Elec.Co.,2013WL3233259,at*17(N.D.Ill.June26,2013).
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
8/12
thatwouldresultifdifferentpleadingstandardsforcounterclaimsandaffirmativedefenseswere
adopted.36 TheCourtnotedthatifdifferentstandardswereapplied,itwouldthenberequiredto
reviewthesamefactualallegationsundertwodifferentstandardsandcouldpotentiallyreacharesult
whereitfoundtheaffirmativedefensesweresufficientlypledbutthecounterclaimwasnotdespitethe
facttheyreliedontheexactsamefactualallegations.37 Refusingtoadoptarulethatwouldleadto
suchresults,theCourtheldthataffirmativedefensesmustcomplywiththepleadingrequirementsset
forthinTwombly. However,inviewoflocalrulesthatrequiredcontentiondisclosures,theCourt
acknowledgeditmustbecognizanttonotprematurelystrikeinvalidityaffirmativedefensesforfailing
tosetforththenecessarydetailrequiredbyTwombly.38
Similarly,courtsintheNorthernDistrictofCaliforniahavealsoconcludedthatTwombly/Iqbal
appliestoaffirmativedefenses. Forexample,inBlackberryLimited,39theCourtheldthataffirmative
defensepleadingsshouldrequiresomevalidfactualbasisbeyondsomeconjecturethat[thedefense]
maysomehowapply.40 TheCourtseemedparticularlywillingtostrikeclaimsthatrecitedconclusory
catchalllanguage,statingthat[a]pplyingthesamestandard[tocounterclaimsanddefenses]willalso
serveto
weed
out
the
boilerplate
listing
of
affirmative
defenses
which
is
commonplace
in
most
defendants'pleadingswheremanyofthedefensesallegedareirrelevanttotheclaimsasserted.41 The
CourtwentontostrikeseveralaffirmativedefenseswhichtheCourtconcludedlackedanyfactsand
therefore[were]insufficientlypleaded.42
Othercourtshavecometotheoppositeconclusion. Forexample,courtsintheDistrictof
Nevada,EasternDistrictofPennsylvania,NorthernDistrictofOhio,andDistrictofArizonahave
36Id.
37Id.
38Id.*18.
39BlackBerryLimited,2014WL1867009.
40Id.*5(citationomitted).
41Id.(citationomitted).
42Id.(emphasisinoriginal).
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
9/12
concludedthatTwombly/Iqbaldoesnotapplytoaffirmativedefenses.43 Thesecourtshaveoftenrelied
onadistinctionbetweenRule8(a)(2)whichrequiresashowingversusRule8(c)whichrequiresa
statement.
InGE
Lighting
Solutions44,ajudgeintheNorthernDistrictofOhioheldthatwhileTwombly/Iqbal
appliedtocounterclaims,thejudgewouldnotapplythesamestandardtosimilarlypleadedaffirmative
defenses. Incomingtoitsconclusion,theCourtreliedonSixthCircuitprecedentthattheFederalRules
requirealowerstandardforpleadingdefenses,andheldthatanaffirmativedefensemaybepleadedin
generaltermssolongasitgivestheplaintifffairnoticeofthenatureofthedefense.45 TheCourt
recognizedthatthiswouldapplytwodifferentstandardstosimilarlanguage,notingthataninvalidity
counterclaimassertedwithoutanyfactualsupportwillbedismissedunder12(b)(6)whileanidentically
wordedaffirmativedefensewillnot.46 TheCourtconcludedthateventhoughDefendantsaffirmative
defenseslackfactualcontenttheyweresufficientundertheRules.47
Similarly,inVercoDecking48,ajudgeintheDistrictofArizonaconcludedthatTwombly/Iqbaldid
notapplytopleadingaffirmativedefensesandbaseditsholdingonthelanguageofRule8. Specifically,
theCourt,
citing
Rule
8,
explained
that
the
only
pleading
requirement
for
an
affirmative
defense,
as
opposedtoadefenseoraclaim,isthatapartymustaffirmativelystateit.49 TheCourtspecifically
statedthatsuchdefensesneedonlycomplywithnoticepleadingrequirements.50 TheCourtalso
declinedtoreadtherequirementsofRule8(a)(2)intoRule8(c). Basedontheseconclusions,theCourt
didnotstriketheDefendantsaffirmativedefenses.
43E.g.,Rockwell
Automation,
Inc.,23F.Supp.3dat124142;Verco
Decking,
Inc.,
2013WL6844106at*4*5;GE
LightingSolutions,LLC,2013WL1874855at*3*4;Tyco,777FSupp.2dat896,903.44
GELightingSolutions,LLC,2013WL1874855.45
Id.*4(citationsomitted).46
Id.47
Id.48
VercoDecking,Inc.,2013WL6844106.49
Id.*5.50
Id.
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
10/12
However,evenwhenanaccusedinfringercanidentifythestandardlikelytobeappliedbya
particulardistrictcourtjudgemuchaswithcounterclaims,therearewidediscrepanciesinthe
sufficiencyofanaffirmativedefensepleading,undereithertheTwombly/Iqbalstandardorthelower
noticepleadingstandardofRule8(c).
Forexample,inTyco,theCourtheldthatanaffirmativedefensewhichallegedonlythatthe
patentwasinvalidand/orunenforceableforfailuretocomplywiththeconditionsofpatentability
specifiedinTitle35oftheUnitedStatesCode,including,withoutlimitation,atleast101,102,103
and112wassufficientlypleadedunderthelowerstandardsofRule8(c).51 Bycontrast,theCourtin
RockwellAutomation,applyingthesamestandard,heldthatapleadingwhichstated[t]heasserted
claimsofthepatentsinsuitareinvalidforfailingtocomplywiththerequirementsofthepatentlawsof
theUnitedStates,35U.S.C.1etseq.,including,butnotlimitedto,101,102,103,and/or112was
insufficientlypleaded.52 Similarly,theCourtinFlemingheldthatapleadingwhichstated[t]he 038
patentandthe 653patentandthe 905patentareinvalidforfailuretocomplywiththerequirementsof
Title35,UnitedStatesCode,includingbutnotlimitedtoSections102103,112,and/or251was
insufficientunder
any
standard.
53
Againhowever,aswithcounterclaims,courtshavegenerallyshownwillingnesstograntleaveto
amendinsufficientlypleadedaffirmativedefenses.
C. NoEndinSight
Theredoesnotappeartobeanimminentsolutiontothismorass. Asofthispublication,the
FederalCircuithasnottakenuptheseissues,andtheauthorsarenotawareofanypendingcircuit
decisionsonpoint. Additionally,whilepleadingstandardshavebeenacentralissueinmultiplepatent
51Tyco,777FSupp.2dat896,903.
52RockwellAutomation,23F.Supp.3dat1248. However,eventhoughtheCourtfoundthepleadinginsufficient
undertherules,theCourtdidnotdismissorstriketheclaiminviewofthepartiesimpendingdisclosureof
infringementandinvaliditycontentionsundertheLocalRules,whichwouldmoottheissue.53
Flemingv.Escort,Inc.,2013WL870632,*4(D.IdahoMar.6,2013).
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
11/12
reformbills,thesebillsexclusivelydealwitheffortstoincreasethepleadingrequirementsforplaintiffs
alleginginfringementtoahigherstandardthanForm18. Notablyabsentfromanyproposedpatent
reformbillsisanydiscussionofpleadingstandardsforaffirmativedefensesorcounterclaims.
Forexample,boththeInnovationActof2013andtheProtectingAmericanTalentand
EntrepreneurshipActof2015(thePATENTAct)includeprovisionsrelatingtopleadingstandardsin
patentcases. Bothpiecesoflegislationproposeraisingthestandardforpleadingpatentinfringementin
acomplaint,ratherthanlowering(orevenclarifying)thestandardfordefendantscounterclaimsand
defenses. Thus,whiletheproposedlegislationmayputthepartiestoapatentlawsuitonamoreeven
footinginregardstothecorrectstandardforpleadingclaims(albeitnotaffirmativedefenses),itis
unclearwhatameliorativeeffect,ifany,thiswouldhaveontheconfusingandoverlappingapplications
ofthosestandardstopatentcounterclaims,letaloneaffirmativedefenses.
III. WhatDoesthisMeanforPractitioners?
Giventhelackanyforthcomingguidanceorclarityonthisissue,uponbeingservedwitha
complaintforpatentinfringement,whatisanaccusedinfringertodowhenputtingtogethertheir
defensecase?
Thefirstthingtodoisdecidewhatpossibleaffirmativedefensesandcounterclaimsyoumay
wanttoassert. Next,whatisclearfromareviewofthisissueisthatifyouareconsideringeitherorboth
oftheseoptions,youmustfirstidentifythecurrentpatentlandscapeinyourdistrict. Specifically,you
shoulddeterminewhetherornotyourdistricthaslocalpatentrulesthatmayshedlightonthepleading
standards(oranylaterfilingsthatwouldrelatetoit). Thenextstepistodeterminewhatlegalstandard
courtsinyourdistrict,oryourjudge,haveappliedinpreviouscases. Asdiscussedabove,whatis
sufficientunderTwomblyandIqbalinonejurisdictionmaynotevenmeetthelowerstandardofRule
8(c)inanother. Withthisinformationinhand,thenyoucanbegindevelopingyouraffirmativedefenses
andcounterclaimstrategy.
7/26/2019 Confusing World- Patent Pleadings
12/12
Inthecontextofcounterclaims,youcanexpectthatTwombly/Iqbalwillapply. Inthecontextof
affirmativedefenses,theexactstandardwillvarybyjudgeordistrict. Totheextentyouwishtoplead
bothanaffirmativedefenseandcounterclaimusingthesamefacts(e.g.,invalidityornoninfringement),
youshouldbeawarethatadifferentstandardmayapplytoeachofthem. Thesafestthingtodoisto
draftbothyouraffirmativedefensesandcounterclaimstomeetthe
Twombly/Iqbalstandardtothe
extentpossible. However,althoughthestandardsvary,courtshaveshownanincreasedwillingnessto
dismissclaimsthatmerelycontainboilerplatelanguageunderanyofthestandards.
Additionally,inadistrictthatrequiresrelativelyspecificpleadings,youmayoptnottoinclude
weakerdefensesorcounterclaimswherelessfactualinformationisavailabletoyouatthetimeandyou
donotexpecttodevelopadditionalfactswithinareasonabletimeframe. Finally,giventhisunsettled
landscape,ifyouarefacedwithamotiontodismiss,besuretorequestleavetoamend,andatalltimes
afterfilingtheanswer,continueyourfactualinvestigationsothatyouwouldbeapositiontoamendthe
pleadingsinameaningfulway.
ConradGosenandTashaFrancis,Ph.D.areattorneysintheTwinCitiesofficeofFish&Richardson.
[email protected]@fr.com.