e.Digital Corporation v. iBaby Labs, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING re 23 First MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by iBaby Labs, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 29, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,

7

Case No. 15-cv-05790-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

9
IBABY LABS, INC.,

10

Re: ECF No. 23

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court requests supplemental briefing from the parties addressing whether the pleading

13

standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) applies to claims of direct patent

14

infringement as a result of the abrogation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and Form 18,1 or

15

if the pleading standard in K-Tech Telecomm., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277,

16

1283 (Fed. Cir. 2013) still applies,2 as this Court held prior to the abrogation of Rule 84 and Form

17

18 in JDS Uniphase Corp. v. CoAdna Photonics, Inc., No. 14-cv-01091-JST, 2014 WL 2918544,

18

at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2014). The Court further requests supplemental briefing from the

19

parties addressing whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for direct patent infringement under the

20

Twombly pleading standard, assuming that standard applies.
In addition, the parties should discuss what specific requirements the application of the

21
22

Twombly pleading standard would impose in the context of a patent case. Raindance Techs., Inc.

23

v. 10x Genomics, Inc., No. CV 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016), for

24
25
26
27
28

1

See, e.g., Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 14-cv-05093-WHA, 2015 WL
8607390, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2015).
2
See, e.g., Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., No. 2:14-cv-0772-GMN-NJK, 2016
WL 199417, at *2 n.1 (D. Nev. Jan. 15, 2016) (applying the K-Tech pleading standard because
“the Advisory Committee note associated with this change directly states, ‘The abrogation of Rule
84 does not alter existing pleading standards or otherwise change the requirements of Civil Rule
8.’”).

1

example, suggests that a direct patent infringement plaintiff must tie each asserted claim limitation

2

to the accused product.3

3

Opening supplemental briefs, not to exceed 15 pages in length, are due by May 20, 2016 at

4

5:00 p.m. Either party may, but is not required to, file a reply supplemental brief of not more than

5

10 pages by June 10, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. A hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and the

6

supplemental briefing is scheduled for July 7, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: April 29, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

The parties may suggest that this Court impose a similar requirement or something different; the
Court offers the Raindance case solely as an example of how one Court has applied Twombly in
the patent context.
2