United States: How The Elimination Of Form 18 Has Impacted Direct Patent Infringement

On December 1, 2015, the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. Among the changes, the amended Rules abrogated Rule 84 and its Appendix of Forms that "suffice[d] under [the pre-amendment] rules and illustrate[d] the simplicity and brevity that [those] rules contemplate[d]." Now-deleted Form 18 was a bare-bones exemplar complaint alleging direct patent infringement, and provided a low bar for the amount of notice and detail that a patentee must provide to the court and the defendant.

The abrogation of Form 18 eliminated the tension between its low threshold for direct infringement pleading and the higher pleading standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly1 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,2 and which has—since these decisions—generally been applied to patentees asserting a complaint of indirect patent infringement. The Iqbal/Twombly standard requires a plaintiff to plead a "plausible" claim; a claim has plausibility when "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."3

Several district courts have addressed post-Rule amendment direct infringement pleading. Although they generally agree that the abrogation of Form 18 and the subsequent application of the Iqbal/Twombly standard requires more detailed pleading, there is some disagreement as to the specific requirements for stating a plausible claim.

The Northern District of California was one of the first courts to react to the rule change. Just weeks after the elimination of Form 18, Judge Alsup ruled, unsurprisingly, that the plausibility standard of Iqbal/Twombly now applies to direct patent infringement claims.4 More recently, in Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., Magistrate Judge LaPorte further elucidated the new standard of pleading for patent infringement cases.5 In Atlas, the Magistrate Judge found that the complaint did not state a plausible claim because it recited some—but not all—of the claim elements of the sole asserted claim and provided only a "threadbare" description of the structure and functions of the patented device.6

The Northern District of California's decision in Avago Techs. General IP (Singapore) PTE Ltd. v. Asustek Computer, Inc. reaffirmed the district's application of the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard, stating that "Form 18 no longer provides the proper measure for the sufficiency of a complaint" and that, under the new rules, "allegations of direct infringement will be subject to the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal."7 Unlike in Atlas, however, Judge Chen in Avago found that the plaintiff had sufficiently stated a plausible claim for relief. According to Judge Chen, "nothing about Twombly and Iqbal suggests that a patent infringement complaint that largely tracks the language of the claims to allege infringement is insufficient per se."8 Judge Chen found that "the allegations are not as conclusory as that formerly permitted under Form 18 and has sufficient specificity to provide at least some notice to [the defendant]."9 Judge Chen also noted that the district generally does not require detailed infringement theories until the time that infringement contentions are served, which is normally several months after a complaint is filed.10

Judge Gilstrap—in front of whom nearly one-third of the nation's patent cases sit11—of the Eastern District of Texas stated that "Form 18 no longer provides a safe harbor for direct infringement."12 In Ruby Sands v. Am. Nat'l Bank of Texas, Judge Gilstrap found that the amended complaint plainly failed to state a plausible claim. According to Judge Gilstrap, the plaintiff made no factual allegations that "even remotely" suggest the defendant performed any alleged infringing activity, which forced the court to conclude there was no plausible inference of direct infringement.13 Worse, however, was the inadvertent inclusion of language in the complaint that was from a pleading in a different case, completely unrelated to the patent in the present case. Judge Gilstrap pointed out that these "cut-and-paste" pleading practices were exactly what the elimination of Form 18 meant to address.14

Notwithstanding the "careless[]"15 pleading in Ruby Sands, patent litigants in the Eastern District of Texas have generally approached the abrogation of Form 18 by providing more details and higher levels of specificity in their complaints. From the time Form 18 was eliminated until January 27, patent litigants filed 148 lawsuits in the district. Of those cases, 133 identified at least one accused instrumentality by name, 132 complaints identified at least one asserted patent claim, 100 complaints provided details on the infringement, and nine complaints provided a claim chart connecting at least one asserted claim to at least one accused instrumentality.16

The District of Delaware—another very busy jurisdiction for patent litigation—has also addressed direct infringement pleading post-Form 18 abrogation. For example, in RainDance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., Judge Andrews granted the defendant's motion to dismiss claims for direct patent infringement.17 Although the complaint was originally filed in February 2015, Judge Andrews applied the Iqbal/Twombly standard because he believed it was "in the interest of justice to do so."18 And, while the complaint was thirty-five pages long, "its essential factual allegations do not take up much space[,]"

and it made no attempt to relate the factual assertions with the patent claims.19 In short, volume alone will not meet the Iqbal/Twombly standard.

More recently, in granting a defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Gutierrez of the Central District of California held that, "in the post-Form 18 world, a plaintiff must include allegations sufficient to 'permit [the] court to infer that the accused product infringes each element of at least one claim.'"20 The plaintiff alleged that its complaint was sufficient because it explained the claim elements and tied each element to a representative accused technology. Notwithstanding, Judge Guiterrez found that the complaint failed because it did not "plausibly allege that any one product produced by Defendants performs all elements . . . [or] that the multiple [identified] products tied to the various claim elements are used to conjunctively infringe."21

Although the specific requirements of the plausibility standard are still developing, it is clear that patent owners can no longer rely on the safe harbor that Form 18 provided and should ideally identify at least one infringed claim, identify at least one infringing product, and describe how the product infringes the identified claim. It is not clear whether amendments will be required to assert additional claims or to accuse additional products, but this seems unlikely.

Footnotes

1 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

2 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

3 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678.

4 Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC v. Apple Inc., No. C-14-05094 WHA, 2015 WL 8607390 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2015).

5 No. 15-cv-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016). Although the Complaint was filed one day prior to the abrogation of Form 18, the plaintiff did not argue that Form 18 applies; instead, it only argued that its Complaint satisfies Iqbal/Twombly. Id. at *2.

6 Id. at *3. 

7 No. 15-CV-04525-EMC, 2016 WL 1623920, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016).

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Professor's Letter Supporting Venue Reform, July 12, 2016, http://www.unitedforpatentreform.com/files/professors-letter-supporting-venue-reform-7-11-161015555780.pdf (In 2015, 2,541 of 5,819 patent cases were filed in E.D. Tex.).

12 No. 2:15-CV-1955-JRG, 2016 WL 3542430, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2016).

13 Id. at *4.

14 Id. at *5.

15 Id.

16 Mackenzie Martin and Yon Chae, Drafting Complaints Under the Heightened Pleading Standard for Patent Lawsuits, Texas Lawyer (Mar. 10, 2016), http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202751875114/Drafting-Complaints-Under-the-Heightened-Pleading-Standard-for-Patent-Lawsuits?slreturn=20160628104749.

17 No. CV 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016).

18 Id. at *2. 

19 Id. at *1.

20 TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc., No. CV 16-2106 PSG (SSx), slip. op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016) (quoting Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., No. 15 C 10746, 2016 WL 2866134, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2016)).

21 Id

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions