United States District Court, D. Delaware
Farnan, Michael Farnan, FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
Jeffrey Bragalone, Jonathan Rastegar, T. William Kennedy,
BRAGALONE CONROY P.C., Dallas, Texas Counsel for Plaintiff.
Blumenfeld, Jennifer Ying, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT, &
TUNNEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Cory Davis, Theresa
Weisenberger, BAKER & HOSTETLERLLP, Atlanta, Georgia;
Daniel Goettle, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Jennifer Kurcz, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP,
Chicago, Illinois Counsel for Defendant.
F. CONNOLLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Interconnect Technologies LLC (SIT) has filed a three-count
complaint against HP Inc. for patent infringement. D.I. 1.
Before me is HP's motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.I.
9. For the reasons discussed below, I will grant HP's
alleges in its complaint that, "by, among other things,
making, having made, using, offering for sale, selling,
and/or importing electronic devices with Universal Flash
Storage (UFS)," HP has and continues to directly
infringe and induce infringement of three patents: U.S.
Patent Nos. 7, 627, 044; 6, 463, 092; and 7, 158, 593. D.I. 1
¶¶ 12, 27, 42. SIT alleges in particular that the HP
Envy x2 detachable personal computer incorporates UFS,
id. ¶ 13, and directly infringes the asserted
patents, id. ¶¶ 13, 28, 43. HP seeks to
dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. D.I. 9 at 1.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR STATING A CLAIM
state a claim on which relief can be granted, a complaint
must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
required, but the complaint must include more than mere
"labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action."
Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citation omitted). The complaint must set forth enough
facts, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. A
claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation omitted). Deciding whether a claim is
plausible is a "context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense." Id. at 679 (citation omitted).
Direct Infringement Claims
for direct infringement arises when a party "without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
invention, within the United States or imports into the
United States any patented invention during the term of the
patent." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To plead direct
infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts "that
plausibly indicate that the accused products contain each of
the limitations found in the claim." TMI Sols. LLC
v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., 2018 WL 4660370,
at *9 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2018) (citations omitted).
complaint must place the potential infringer on notice of
what activity is being accused of infringement."
Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and
citation omitted). To provide notice, a plaintiff must
generally do more than assert that the accused product meets
the claim elements; it must show how the defendant
plausibly infringes by alleging some facts connecting the
accused product to the claim elements. See SIPCO, LLC v.
Streetline, Inc., 230 F.Supp.3d 351, 353 (D. Del. 2017)
(granting a motion to dismiss a direct infringement claim
because "[t]he complaint contains no attempt to connect
anything in the patent claims to anything about any of the