Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ralph Lauren Corp.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 27, 2018

LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, CLUB MONACO U.S., LLC, and CLUB MONACO CORPORATION Defendants.

          Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard Charles Weinblatt, STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC, Wilmington, DE Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Kelly E. Farnan and Nicole Kathleen Pedi, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA, Wilmington, DE James F. Valentine, Victoria Q. Smith, and Amisha K. Manek, PERKINS COIE LLP, Palo Alto, CA Attorneys for Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Lexos Media IP, LLC ("Lexos") filed suit against Defendant Ralph Lauren Corporation ("RLC") on September 15, 2017, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5, 995, 102 ("the '102 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 6, 118, 449 ("the '449 patent"). (D.I. 1) On November 27, 2017, Lexos filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (D.I. 15) On December 18, 2017, RLC moved to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), based on RLC's contentions that Lexos failed to plead sufficient facts to place RLC on notice of Lexos' infringement theory, and that Lexos' allegations did not state a plausible claim for infringement. (D.I. 20) Lexos later joined Defendants Club Monaco U.S., LLC and Club Monaco Corporation. (D.I. 42)

         For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny RLC's motion to dismiss.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The '102 patent and the '449 patent, which share a common specification, relate to systems for modifying a cursor image displayed on a user's computer terminal. RLC operates a website that, according to Lexos, modifies cursor images in a manner that infringes claims of the '102 patent and the '449 patent. (D.I. 15)

         In its FAC, Lexos alleges infringement of claims 71, 72, and 73 of the '102 patent, and claims 1 and 53 of the '449 patent. (Id.) All asserted claims involve modifying a cursor image. Claim 72 of the '102 patent, which is representative, includes the following:

A method for modifying an initial cursor image displayed on a display of a user terminal connected to at least one server, comprising:
providing ... to said user terminal.. . cursor image data corresponding to a specific image; and transforming said initial cursor image . . . into the shape and appearance of said specific image ....

(D.I. 15, Ex. A)

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         Evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the Court to accept as true all material allegations of the complaint. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court may grant such a motion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby,135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.