Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ORDER
Avon Products, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 8(a)(2) (Docket No. 120) is before the Court. Having considered the parties’
Avon moves to dismiss Soverain’s direct infringement claims under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing
that the patents-in-suit require the participation of multiple parties in order for direct infringement
to occur. Avon contends that Soverain’s complaint does not allege that Avon’s websites do not
direct or control all of the potentially infringing elements under BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech,
L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Muniauction, Inc. v. Thompson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). As Avon contends that Soverain has not properly pled its direct infringement claims,
Avon also argues that Soverain’s indirect infringement claims must fail for the same reasons.
Finally, Avon contends that Soverain has not adequately pled its indirect infringement claims under
Rule 8(a)(2) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) because Soverain’s complaint
does not contain factual allegations of the knowledge required for inducement or contributory
infringement.
Soverain’s complaint sufficiently complies with Form 18, therefore under Rule 84 Soverain
has adequately pled its claims under Rule 8(a)(2) and Twombly. See Celltrace LLC v. MetroPCS
Commc’ns, 6:09cv371-LED (Docket No. 63). To the extent that Avon is arguing that it cannot
infringe the patents—and therefore Soverain could not have adequately pled infringement—because
Avon does not direct or control all of the infringing elements, that argument is premature at this stage
of the case. The Court denies the motion as to that argument without prejudice to re-raising after
__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE