IconFind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Filing
64
ORDER Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 8/2/11, GRANTING 35 Iconfind's motion to dismiss Google's second counterclaim and to strike Google's second affirmative defense. Google is GRANTED 10 days from the date on which this order is filed to amend the deficiencies in its pleading addressed in this Order.
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
Iconfind, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11
Google, Inc.,
12
Defendant.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-00319-GEB-JFM
ORDER*
13
Plaintiff Iconfind moves for an order dismissing Defendant
14
15
Google’s
invalidity
counterclaim
and
striking
Google’s
invalidity
16
affirmative defense.
17
are not facially plausible claims, and therefore Iconfind has not been
18
provided with fair notice of the claimed invalidity.
Iconfind argues Google’s invalidity allegations
19
The motion concerns Google’s second affirmative defense and
20
second counterclaim in which it alleges that the patent-in-suit, U.S.
21
Patent No. 7,181,459 (the “‘459 patent”), is invalid. These allegations
22
are identical and are the following:
The Claims of the ‘459 patent are invalid under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because they fail to claim patentable
subject matter insofar as each seeks to claim an
abstract idea; [and] because they fail to meet the
‘conditions for patentability’ of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,
103, and/or 112 because the claims lack utility;
are taught by, suggested by, and/or obvious in view
of, the prior art; and/or are not adequately
23
24
25
26
27
28
*
argument.
This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1
1
supported by the written
patented invention.
description
of
the
2
A counterclaim may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim
3
on which relief can be granted.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Further,
4
“the court may strike from a pleading [any] insufficient defense
5
. . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
6
A pleaded claim or defense must “give . . . fair notice of
7
what the . . . claim [or defense] is and the grounds upon which [relief]
8
rests . . . .”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
9
(2007); see also Qarbon.com, Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046,
10
1048-49 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
A pleading must allege “enough facts to
11
[show] relief . . . is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at
12
570. Facial plausibility means the pled “factual content [is sufficient
13
for a court] to draw the reasonable inference” that the pleader is
14
entitled to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
15
Under the applicable pleading standard, the court “accept[s]
16
as true all facts [pled]. . ., and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in
17
favor of the [non-movant].”
Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 956 (9th
18
Cir.
2009).
However,
neither
conclusory
statements
nor
legal
19
conclusions are entitled to a presumption of truth.
See Iqbal, 129 S.
20
Ct. at 1949-50.
21
Google’s invalidity allegations are comprised solely of legal
22
conclusions
and/or
conclusory
factual
allegations.
First,
Google
23
alleges that the ‘459 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
24
the patent “seeks to claim an ‘abstract idea.’”
This conclusory
25
allegation is insufficient under the pleading standard since it does not
26
contain factual allegations sufficient to support drawing a reasonable
27
inference that ‘459 patent does not contain patentable ideas.
“A
28
reference to a doctrine, like a reference to statutory provisions, is
2
1
insufficient notice[]” of the basis for the relief the pleader seeks.
2
Qarbon, 315 F. Supp. 2d at 1049.
3
Google’s prior art invalidity allegations, alleged under 35
4
U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, are also insufficient since Google fails to
5
allege facts sufficient for a reasonable inference to be drawn that the
6
claimed
7
Innovations, Inc. v. Minsurg Corp., No. 10-1726, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8
41756, at *4-5, 2011 WL 1466181, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2011)
9
(examining an allegation that the patent-in-suit was invalid “in light
10
of the Stein Paper and other prior art, including scholarly articles and
11
patents disclosing the use of minimally invasive surgical portals and
12
approaches”).
invention
is
invalid
in
light
of
prior
art.
Cf.,
VG
13
Lastly, Google’s allegation that the claims of the ‘459 patent
14
“are not adequately supported by the written description of the patented
15
invention” is a legal conclusion since no factual allegations are pled
16
from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Iconfind failed to
17
provide an adequate written description of the ‘459 patent.
18
Therefore,
Iconfind’s
motion
to
dismiss
Google’s
second
19
counterclaim and to strike Google’s second affirmative defense is
20
granted.
21
order is filed to amend the deficiencies in its pleading addressed in
22
this Order. Failure to amend within this leave period could result in a
23
dismissal order issuing with prejudice.
24
Dated:
Google is granted ten (10) days from the date on which this
August 2, 2011
25
26
27
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?