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