Addiction and Detoxification Institute, LLC v. John Epperly, et al

Filing 34

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/23/2012:For the reasons set forth below, Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint 25 is granted and Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is given 21 days to replead if it believes that it cancure the deficiencies identified in this order. Defendants motion for sanctions 33 is stricken without prejudice. Defendants may renew their motion for sanctions if Plaintiff files another amended complaint and Defendants believe that the motion is warranted in light of the amendment. In the event that Defendants renew their motion for sanctions at a later date, they are advised that they must file a notice of motion indicating a date certain on which the motion will be presented or their motion will be stricken. Mailed notice(tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

11 C 5947

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/23/2012

Addiction & Detoxification Institute, LLC vs. Epperly, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint [25] is granted and
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is given 21 days to replead if it believes that it can
cure the deficiencies identified in this order. Defendants’ motion for sanctions [33] is stricken without prejudice.
Defendants may renew their motion for sanctions if Plaintiff files another amended complaint and Defendants
believe that the motion is warranted in light of the amendment. In the event that Defendants renew their motion
for sanctions at a later date, they are advised that they must file a notice of motion indicating a date certain on
which the motion will be presented or their motion will be stricken.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Addiction and Detoxification Institute, LLC (“ADI”) filed the instant lawsuit alleging that Defendants
infringed upon two patents in which Plaintiff allegedly has an interest. Plaintiff asserts that the two patents at
issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,004,962 (the ‘962 Patent), entitled “Rapid Opioid Detoxification,” and 5,789,411
(the ‘411 Patent), entitled “Improvements to Rapid Opioid Detoxification.” Plaintiff’s amended complaint
alleges that Defendants “are infringing and/or are contributorially infringing and/or are induced others to infringe
by using, offering to sell, and/or selling methods and services that practice one or more inventions claimed in the
ADI Patents.” The complaint further alleges that Defendants have profited through infringement of the ADI
patents and that ADI has suffered and continues to suffer as a result. This is the sum total of Plaintiff’s
allegations as to “what happened” to give rise to this lawsuit.
As the Seventh Circuit recently stated, “[i]t is by now well established that a plaintiff must do better than putting
a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to
her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010); cf. Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), disapproved by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (“after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation [the ‘no
set of facts’ language] has earned its retirement”). To the Seventh Circuit, “fair notice” means that the plaintiff
must give enough details about the subject matter of the case to present a story that holds together. Swanson, 614
F.3d at 404. As the Supreme Court warned in Iqbal and as the Seventh Circuit acknowledged later in Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir.2009), “abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal
statements” (578 F.3d at 581) do nothing “to distinguish the particular case that is before the court from every
other hypothetically possible case in that field of law. Such statements therefore do not add to the notice that
Rule 8 demands.” Swanson, 614 F.3d at 405.

11C5947 Addiction & Detoxification Institute, LLC vs. Epperly, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
Plaintiff’s complaint is woefully deficient, even under Rule 8(a)’s liberal pleading standard. As Plaintiff’s brief
demonstrates, Plaintiff is laboring under the mistaken belief that the pleading standard under Rule 8(a) allows
a plaintiff to state conclusory allegations that must be taken as true. While a court must accept all factual
allegations in a complaint as true, those allegations with a “conclusory nature” are “disentitle[d] * * * to the
presumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009). Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants are
infringing upon Plaintiff’s patents, without the support of any facts, are insufficient to state a claim. The primary
case relied upon by Plaintiff in its response actually supports Defendants’ position. See McZeal v. Sprint Nextel
Corp., 501 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although the Federal Circuit allowed the pro se plaintiff (here, Plaintiff
has counsel) to proceed with his patent infringement suit, the pro se plaintiff pleaded more facts than Plaintiff
presents in this case. The court in McZeal specifically pointed out the facts that the pro se plaintiff pleaded in
support of his claim, including the means by which the alleged infringer infringed the patent, specific parts of
the patent that were infringed, and how the manufactured item in dispute was similar to the plaintiff’s patent to
the point that it allegedly infringed the plaintiff’s patent. Here, Plaintiff has provided none of these details.
Plaintiff is given 21 days to replead if it believes that it can cure the deficiencies identified in this order . “While
a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations,
quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Defendants’ motion for sanctions is stricken without prejudice because
Defendants failed to notice their motion before the Court. If Plaintiff files another amended complaint and
Defendants believe a motion for sanctions is warranted in light of the amendment (Defendants’ motion for
sanctions will not be considered on the basis of the original complaint, which has been dismissed without
prejudice), then Defendants may renew their motion for sanctions. In the event that Defendants renew their
motion for sanctions at a later date, they must file a notice of motion indicating a date certain for presentment
of their motion or it will again be stricken.

11C5947 Addiction & Detoxification Institute, LLC vs. Epperly, et al.

Page 2 of 2