Re: Important paragraphs from IBABY v. e.DIGITAL Pacer !
in response to
by
Message: New 52 week high...eom
Pravda , EDIG needs cooperation from IBABY related to further discovery in order to convince the court those claim infringement are "plausible ".
Excerpts from the Pacer ;
To require a patentee to plausibly allege that the accused product practices each of the limitations in at least one asserted claim should not impose an undue burden on most plaintiffs, because a patentee is already required to perform an adequate pre-filing investigation before bringing suit. E.g., MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson, 664 F.3d 907, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
There may be circumstances in which a patentee cannot confirm the fact of infringement without obtaining discovery from the defendant. Perhaps our pleading standards will evolve to permit allegations on information and belief when the facts are in the defendant’s sole possession, which is what has happened with regard to the law of fraud.
when information is in the sole possession of the defendant, that the defendant move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) and identify those portions of the complaint that fail to meet Iqubal/Twombly standards. The Court could then grant the motion if appropriate and order limited discovery targeted to those deficiencies. Scott Dodson, New Pleading, New Discovery, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 53, 85 (2010).
15 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply