Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED; 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/27/18. (ntl)
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
C.A. No. 17-1317-LPS-CJB
JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
WHEREAS , Magistrate Judge Burke issued a 7-page Report and Recommendation
("Report") (D.I. 36), dated June 5, 2018, recommending that the Court deny Defendant Jos. A.
Bank Clothiers, Inc. ' s ("Jos A. Bank' s") motion to dismiss (D.I. 16) PlaintiffLexos Media IP,
LLC ' s ("Lexos"') First Amended Complaint ("FAC") (D.I. 12);
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2018, Jos A. Bank objected to the Report ("Objections") (D.I.
37), specifically objecting to the Report' s finding that Lexos sufficiently alleged Lexos Media
Inc.'s compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287, the patent marking statute, and the Report' s conclusion
that Lexos need not plead its other licensees' compliance with the marking statute;
WHEREAS , on July 3, 2018, Lexos responded to Jos. A. Bank' s Objections (D.I. 40)
("Response");
WHEREAS , the Court has considered the parties' objections and responses de nova, see
St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. , 691 F. Supp. 2d
538, 541-42 (D. Del. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1
1.
Jos. A. Bank's Objections (D.I. 37) are OVERRULED, Judge Burke's Report
(D.I. 36) is ADOPTED, and Jos. A. Bank's motion to dismiss (D.I. 16) is DENIED.
2.
Jos. A. Bank first objects to the Report' s finding that "Plaintiff had adequately
alleged Lexos Media Inc. 's compliance" with 35 U.S.C. § 287, the patent marking statute.
(Objections at 3) In particular, Jos. A. Bank contends that the Report erred by not requiring the
FAC to show markings on the websites ofLexos Media Inc. ' s Cursor Marketing and AdBull
products. (Id.) Jos. A. Bank contends that "the alleged invention can only exist in a website, ...
[so] any website employing the claimed functionality is 'intrinsic to' the patented products and
methods" and must, therefore, be marked. (Id. at 4) To Jos. A. Bank, then, the FAC must show
that the Cursor Marketing and AdBull websites were marked. (Id.)
3.
The Court disagrees. Assuming, without deciding, that the Cursor Marketing and
AdBull products practiced the asserted patents, 1 the products' respective websites would still not
necessarily be intrinsic to the patent claims. The FAC appears to allege that the Cursor
Marketing product is practiced not on the Cursor Marketing website but, instead, on third-party
websites. (See D.I. 12111) At this stage, then, the Court must agree with the Report that it
"could have been acceptable notice under Section 287(a) for Lexos Media, Inc. to have simply
marked its own website." (Report at 6).
4.
Jos. A. Bank also objects to the Report' s conclusion that Lexos need not plead
compliance with the marking statute by its other licensees. (Objections at 5-6) In the Court's
view, the Report correctly concluded that Jos. A. Bank did not satisfy its burden of production
merely by noting that Lexos had "numerous" licensees. (See Report at 3-5; see also Arctic Cat
1
Jos. A. Bank relies on statements of Lexos Media, Inc., a different entity than the
Plaintiff in the instant action, to support its view that Cursor Marketing and AdBull practice the
asserted patents. The Court need not decide if such imputation is appropriate here.
2
Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that
an alleged infringer bears an initial burden of production to identify unmarked patented
products). Nor will the Court consider documents outside of the record appropriate for a motion
to dismiss that were also not presented to the Magistrate Judge. Finally, the Court agrees with
the Report that "if certain products are not yet rightly part of the case (because [Jos. A. Bank]
had not yet met its burden of production to specifically identify them), it stands to reason that
[Lexos] would not have had to plead facts relating to those products." (Report at 5)
September 27, 2018
Wilmington, Delaware
HO~ t~ARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?