Confusing World- Patent Pleadings

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


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).


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.


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).


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.


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.


7/12

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).


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).


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.


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).


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.


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.

Documents

Confusing World- Patent Pleadings