Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman et al

Filing 96

DECISION AND ORDER ACCEPTING and MODIFYING Magistrate Judge Scott's 84 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING Defendant Optimum Energy LLC's 70 Motion to Dismiss Armstrong's Amended Counterclaim for Patent Invalidity; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant Optimum Energy LLC's 78 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Issued by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge U.S.D.C. on 3/25/2012. (MEAL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
W ESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ARMSTRONG PUMP, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.

DECISION AND ORDER

MR. THOMAS HARTMAN d/b/a
THE HARTMAN COMPANY, and
OPTIMUM ENERGY, LLC,

10-CV-446S(Sc)

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). On December 29, 2011, Magistrate Judge Scott
issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 84) on Defendant Optimum Energy’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment of Patent
Invalidity (Docket No. 70)1 and its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 78).
He recommends that Optimum’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s counterclaim be granted and,
in light of that recommendation, that there is no need to rule on Optimum’s motion for
partial summary judgment.
Presently before this Court are both Optimum’s (Docket No. 87) and Armstrong’s
(Docket No. 88) objections to the Report and Recommendation. The objections are fully

1

Defendant Hartm an d/b/a The Hartm an Com pany (hereafter, “Hartm an”) joins in the m otion to
dism iss the am ended counterclaim . (Docket No. 71.)

1

briefed, and the matter is now before this Court for review.
II. BACKGROUND
Armstrong commenced this contract action on May 28, 2010, and filed an Amended
Complaint on March 8, 2011. Its claims relate to a License Agreement between Armstrong
and Hartman, involving three patents then owned by Hartman to which he granted
Armstrong certain exclusive rights.2 Hartman also entered into a license agreement with
Defendant Optimum Energy granting it certain other rights in the same patents. Armstrong
now claims that Hartman breached their License Agreement and that Optimum Energy
tortiously interfered with that Agreement.
In answering the Amended Complaint, Optimum alleged that it is Hartman’s
successor in interest in the at-issue License Agreement, and asserted counterclaims
against Armstrong for breach of contract and patent infringement. Armstrong answered
Optimum’s counterclaims, and asserted counterclaims against Optimum and crossclaims
against Hartman, alleging additional breaches of the License Agreement.
Armstrong subsequently sought leave to amend its answer and counterclaims as
to Optimum to add counterclaims for patent invalidity. The motion to amend was granted,
and Armstrong filed its amended answer on August 8, 2011. Optimum thereafter moved
to dismiss Armstrong’s newly-added counterclaims (Docket No. 70), and to estop
Armstrong from claiming that its products marked with the LOOP patents do not practice
the LOOP patents (Docket No. 78). These two motions are the subject of the challenged
Report and Recommendation.

2

The patents— U.S. Patents 5,946,926; 6, 257,007; and 6,185,946— are collectively referred to
as the LOOP patents.

2

In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Scott concluded that
Armstrong’s counterclaims for patent invalidity fail to meet minimal pleading standards.
Armstrong objects to the recommendation that its counterclaims be dismissed for failure
to state a claim.

The Magistrate Judge further concluded that, in light of the first

recommendation, there is no need to address Optimum’s request that Armstrong be
estopped from claiming its products do not practice the LOOP patents. Both Armstrong
and Optimum contend that the recommendation on the first motion does not negate the
need to address the second motion, and proceed to argue for opposing outcomes in that
regard.

III. DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
A district court reviews those portions of a report and recommendation to which a

party has timely objected under a de novo standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no
objections have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face of the
record. United States v. Singleton, 608 F. Supp. 2d 397, 401 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing
White v. Fischer, No. 04-CV-5358, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69110, 2008 WL 4210478, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2008)).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the objections thereto, the
district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3

B.

Objections
1.

Armstrong’s Counterclaims for Patent Invalidity

In its counterclaims for patent invalidity, Armstrong alleges that “an actual
controversy exists between Armstrong and Optimum or Hartman regarding the validity of
the [LOOP patents],” and that “[a]ll claims of the [‘926, ‘007, and ‘946] patent[s] are invalid
for failing to meet one or more conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
102, 103, and/or 112.” (Docket No. 68 ¶¶ 149-50, 152-53, 155-56.) Neither the Amended
Complaint nor the Amended Answer to Optimum’s Counterclaims provide any facts to
suggest how or in what way the patents are invalid. Magistrate Judge Scott recommends
dismissal based on this failure to allege any factual basis for the relief requested.
Armstrong contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying the pleading
standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868
(2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d
929 (2007), which require that a plaintiff plead some facts in support of legal conclusions.
See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (though “legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations”).

Relying on Automated

Transactions, LLC v. First Niagara Fin. Group, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 407, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
141275 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010), Armstrong argues that this District has rejected the
Twombly/Iqbal standard as inconsistent with the simplicity and brevity of pleading
contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and the Appendix of Forms to the
Federal Rules.
I find no need to resolve, on these objections, the tension that may exist between

4

Twombly/Iqbal and the Appendix Forms because Armstrong’s counterclaims for patent
invalidity are insufficient under either standard. Here, Plaintiff conclusorily alleges that
every claim in each of three patents fails to meet one or multiple unspecified conditions for
patentability. The Amended Complaint and amended counterclaims are devoid of any
facts that would suggest which deficiency(ies) apply to which patent(s) or claim(s) and
therefore do not give fair notice to Optimum of the basis for the counterclaims. Even the
Appendix Forms, on which Armstrong relies, require some factual content, minimal or
generalized though it may be. Each requires that a plaintiff identify a date, document,
event, and/or conduct that forms the basis for his or her claims. None suggest a
declaration that a statute has been violated, standing alone, is sufficient to survive a motion
to dismiss. Accordingly, Armstrong’s objection is denied and this Court accepts the
recommendation that the counterclaims for patent invalidity be dismissed for failure to state
a claim.
2.

Optimum’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Optimum moved for partial summary judgment, not on a claim or counterclaim, but
with regard to Armstrong’s purported strategy in this case. Citing two paragraphs of
Armstrong’s answer to the Optimum counterclaims, Optimum argued that Armstrong
cannot “feign ignorance or deny that its marked products practice the LOOP patents.”
(Docket No. 78-15 at 2, 8.) It went on to complain that based on Armstrong’s “sudden
patent invalidity counterclaim, Armstrong now contends that full-blown patent discovery is
required in this case” and that Optimum’s motion is necessary to maintain the proper focus
of this case. (Id. at 3-4.)

5

After recommending that Armstrong’s patent invalidity counterclaims be dismissed,
Magistrate Judge Scott concluded there was no need to address Optimum’s motion for
partial summary judgment. Optimum objects to this conclusion, and Armstrong joins in the
objection.

In particular, Optimum argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously

characterized the purpose of its motion as one to estop Armstrong from challenging the
validity of the LOOP patents when, in fact, it seeks to estop Armstrong from denying its
products practice those patents. As such, Optimum concludes, the motion is not moot and
needs to be addressed.
This Court agrees that the Magistrate Judge’s description of the relief sought is at
odds with Optimum’s motion. Nevertheless, the objections are denied for the reasons
stated below.
At the outset, this Court disagrees with Optimum’s characterization of Armstrong’s
answer to its counterclaim as a denial that a particular Armstrong product infringes a
particular patent or patents. No such denial is evident on the face of that pleading or the
Amended Complaint. As such, this issue is anticipatory, at best. To the extent it may
become part of the underlying dispute over the scope of Armstrong’s and Optimum’s
respective license agreements, it is more appropriately addressed when that dispute is ripe
for consideration. See, e.g., Elite Licensing v. Thomas Plastics, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 372
(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (considering estoppel issue in context of preliminary injunction motion
where party opposing motion affirmatively claimed that its products were not covered by
the patent number with which they were marked). Accordingly, I find this motion is
premature, rather than moot, and the recommendation for dismissal is accepted with the
modification that the dismissal is without prejudice.
6

IV. CONCLUSION
This Court accepts the recommendation in Magistrate Judge Scott’s December 29,
2011 Report and Recommendation, as modified herein.

V. ORDERS
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that this Court accepts Magistrate Judge Scott’s
December 29, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 84), for the reasons given
and the additional reasons stated herein, except that the Report and Recommendation is
modified with respect to the dismissal of Optimum Energy LLC’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
FURTHER that Defendant Optimum Energy LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Armstrong’s
Amended Counterclaim for Patent Invalidity (Docket No. 70) is GRANTED.
FURTHER that Defendant Optimum Energy LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 78) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as premature.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2012
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Court

7