Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog : Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

          Wright filed its complaint on May 20, 2011, alleging Defendants Toro and Exmark were engaged in the manufacture of lawn mowers and other equipment that infringes U.S. Patents 6,438,931 and 6,935,093.  Defendants moved to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

Pleading Standard in Maryland Federal Court

          A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the Court said. A complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” While allegations need not be exactingly specific, the Court noted, they “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

          In reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion, a court must assume that the facts presented by the plaintiff are true. This assumption, however, excludes “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Consequently, in order to “survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter” as to provide the court with enough plausible evidence to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

         The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that a complaint will survive a
12(b)(6) motion when it states a plausible claim for relief. However, this determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Pleading Standard for Direct Patent Infringement in Maryland Federal District Court

          The Maryland Federal District Court looks at a complaint for compliance with Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides a guide for pleading, with sufficient plausibility, a claim for direct, literal patent infringement.  Complaints that mirror the Form 18 format in patent cases are sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  A Form 18 claim for direct patent infringement comprises five elements, but the plaintiff is not required to explicitly identify each element in its complaint. Nor is the plaintiff required to provide “notice” of infringement, and intent or knowledge of the infringement is not required to be plead. 

          In the instant case, the Court found that Wright's complaint specifically alleged all of the required Form 18 elements: jurisdiction, patent ownership, direct infringement, and a demand for injunction and/or damages. Although not particularly specific, the Court also found the allegations clearly identify the lawnmower models that allegedly directly infringed, all of which is adequate to establish a plausible basis for a claim for direct, literal infringement under § 271(a), the Court said.

          With regard to the Doctrine of Equivalents, the Court noted an absence of either Federal Circuit precedent and "a fair preponderance of federal district court decisions," and so found Wright's complaint, following Form 18, sufficient to state a plausible claim for infringement by the doctrine of equivalents.

Pleading Standard for Indirect Infringement Patent Infringement in Maryland Federal District Court

          To prove induced infringement, a plaintiff must prove direct infringement and that the infringer had knowledge of the existence of the infringed patent and acts of infringement. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., -- U.S. --, 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2068 (2011) (“We now hold that induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.”). Thus, inducement requires proof that "an inducer persuade[d] another to engage in conduct that the inducer knows is infringement.”  The Court, therefore, concluded that a plaintiff must include factual allegations sufficient to create a plausible claim of intent and knowledge.

          Wright’s intent and knowledge allegations, the Court said, were merely conclusory. It found that Wright alleged knowledge only through a broad statement that “Toro has known of [been aware of] [the patent] since at least 2008.” "More is required," said the Court.  Wright merely provides “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” that are inadequate.

          To prove contributory infringement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew that the combination for which his component was especially designed was both patented and infringing. Thus, contributory infringement requires proof that the defendants (1) offered to sell within the United States or imported into the United States a component of the patented
machine; (2) for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention; (3) with knowledge that the invention was patented and that such use was
infringing.

          Comparing those requirements against Wright's complaint, the Court found the complaint inadequate, noting that, while “the pleading standard [of the Federal Rules] do not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”  Wright's complaint must include, the Court said, at least some factually-supported allegations of knowledge in claims of contributory infringement. Wright provided highly generalized statements concluding that Toro and Exmark are “aiding and causing distributors and/or
dealers to sell and offer to sell mowers, including Grandstand [and Vantage] mowers, within the United States.” This recitation, the Court said, parrots the required elements of the statute without providing any factual setting.

Requirement for Amending Complaints in Maryland Federal District Court: Local Rule 103.6

          In Maryland, amending a complaint is not as simple as in other federal districts.  Rule 103.6 states that a party must:

(1) File a motion requesting leave to file an amended pleading (assuming the time period for amending has expired). 

          With the motion, the original of the proposed amended pleading must accompany the motion. The Court will review the sufficiency of the amended complaint before granting the motion. Generally, only newly added exhibits are to be attached to an amended pleading, however, a new party may be added. The party filing an amended pleading shall file and serve (1) a clean copy of the amended pleading and (2) a copy of the amended pleading in which stricken material has been lined through or enclosed in brackets and new material has been underlined or set forth in bold-faced type.

(2)    Attempt to obtain consent from other counsel before filing the motion requesting leave to file an amended pleading. Counsel shall state in the motion for leave whether the consent of other counsel has been obtained.