B-50.com, LLC v. InfoSync Services, LLC

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 20 Motion to Dismiss filed by InfoSync Services, LLC. (Ordered by Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/22/2011) (Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION B-50.COM, LLC, Plaintiff, VS. INFOSYNC SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. § § § § Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1994-D § § § § §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The motion of defendant InfoSync Services, LLC ("InfoSync") to dismiss the claims of of plaintiff B-50.com, and LLC ("B-50") for

inducement

patent

infringement

contributory

patent

infringement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is denied because B-50 has satisfied the pleadings standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).* To prevail on a claim for indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), B-50 must first prove underlying direct

infringement by showing that the accused method meets each claim of the patented method. See, e.g., BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech,

L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007). B-50 must also show
*

Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of "written opinion" adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a "written opinion[] issued by the court" because it "sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court's decision." It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.

that InfoSync possessed the requisite knowledge or intent to be held vicariously liable. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. B-50 must

Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

therefore demonstrate that InfoSync's actions "induced infringing acts and that [it] knew or should have known [its] actions would induce actual infringements." DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d B-50 must

1293, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc in relevant part).

also establish that InfoSync directed or controlled the conduct of the acting party. See Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks,

Inc., 629 F.3d 1311, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2010). B-50's amended complaint sufficiently alleges the underlying direct infringement required to bring a claim for inducement of infringement. The pertinent parts of the amended complaint are B-50 alleges

factual recitations as opposed to legal conclusions.

that it owns U.S. Patent No. 6,633,851 (the "`851 patent"); that InfoSync produces and sells an infringing method, fully described in the amended complaint; that InfoSync either itself uses or directs, controls, and instructs a third party who uses every element of the allegedly infringing method; that InfoSync describes and advertises the accused method on its website; and that InfoSync has actual knowledge of the `851 patent. B-50 has stated a

plausible claim for the requisite underlying direct infringement. B-50's amended complaint also sufficiently pleads a claim for inducement of infringement. B-50 alleges that InfoSync uses or

- 2 -

sells

methods

claimed

by

the

`851

patent

in

the

accused

application, or directs or controls third parties who perform claimed methods. It also alleges that InfoSync has actual

knowledge of the `851 patent and continued to sell its allegedly infringing application willfully. B-50's allegations of knowledge, willfulness, and direction or control are sufficient to state a claim for inducement of infringement. B-50 has also stated a plausible claim to relief for

contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

B-50 alleges

that InfoSync sells a product, method, or system----specifically the accused reporting application----that is a component designed for use in an infringing manner. It also avers that InfoSync has sold

software tools and instructions to aid in use of the application. The factual content of the amended complaint is sufficient to state a claim that is plausible on its face. * * *

InfoSync's January 7, 2011 motion to dismiss is denied. SO ORDERED. March 22, 2011.

_________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER CHIEF JUDGE

- 3 -