inMusic Brands, Inc. v. Roland Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
InMUSIC BRANDS, INC. 	:
:
v. 	: 	C.A. No. 17-010M
:
ROLAND CORPORATION 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Lincoln D. Almond, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending 	before 	me 	for 	a 	report 	and 	recommended 	disposition 	(28 	U.S.C. 	§
636(b)(1)(B)) is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 	(Document No. 11). 	Plaintiff objects.
(Document No. 13).
Background
Plaintiff filed this patent infringement action on January 10, 2017. 	Plaintiff alleges
direct infringement in Counts I and III, and indirect infringement in Count II. 	Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s claims are inadequately pled and should be dismissed with prejudice.
Defendant also contends that Plaintiff should not be afforded the “lenience” of leave to file
an amended complaint because it tried to resolve these pleading deficiencies informally with
Plaintiff before filing the instant Motion, and Plaintiff refused to meet and confer or amend.
Plaintiff contends that its Complaint adequately pleads plausible claims for infringement and
requests that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied or, in the alternative, that any
dismissal be without prejudice and with leave to amend.
Case 1:17-cv-00010-MSM-LDA Document 15 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
Discussion
Historically, patent infringement complaints were generally sparse and conclusory.
They were typically drafted in conformity with Form 18 1 of the Appendix of Forms to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	Effective December 1, 2015, the Federal Rules were
amended to eliminate Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms including Form 18. 	This 2015
amendment has triggered a legal debate as to the current pleading standard for patent
infringement claims in the context of the Supreme Court’s prior decisions in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 	To my
knowledge, neither the First Circuit nor this District have yet weighed in on this debate.
On 	January 	19, 	2017, 	District 	Judge 	Allison 	Burroughs 	of 	the 	District 	of
Massachusetts considered this issue and held that “the Twombly/Iqbal standard is the correct
standard for reviewing” a patent infringement claim. See Rampage LLC v. Global Graphics
SE, C.A. No. 16-CV-10691-ADB, 2017 WL 239328, *2 (D. Mass. Jan. 19, 2017). 	She
observed that “[t]he vast majority of district courts that have considered cases filed after the
elimination of Form 18 agree that ‘a form that no longer exists can no longer control.’” 	Id.
She 	also 	persuasively 	reasoned 	that 	applying 	the 	Twombly/Iqbal 	standard 	promotes
uniformity and that relying “on a now-abrogated form would only cause confusion and
inconsistency.” 	Id. 	In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 884 (2009), the Supreme Court
clarified that its prior holding in Twombly was not limited to antitrust cases and “expounded
the pleading standard for ‘all civil actions.’” 	This Court has found no basis in Supreme
1 	Form 18 was a model complaint for direct patent infringement claims appended to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Case 1:17-cv-00010-MSM-LDA Document 15 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
Court or First Circuit precedent to treat patent infringement cases differently from other
cases in terms of Rule 8 and the applicability of the Twombly/Iqbal pleading requirements.
Thus, considering Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, the Court must accept as true
all allegations in the Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor.
Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1 st Cir. 1996). 	The Supreme Court restated the review
standard as follows: “[o]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by
showing any sets of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546 (2007). Since Twombly, the Supreme Court further refined its
requirements in Ashcroft v. Iqbal:
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to
relief 	that 	is 	plausible 	on 	its 	face.” 	A 	claim 	has 	facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is
not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). In applying this standard to facts as pled in a complaint, the First
Circuit recommends what it calls “a two-step pavane.” 	Rodriguez-Reyes v. Molina-
Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 49, 53 (1 st Cir. 2013). 	The Court must first identify and disregard the
complaint’s conclusory legal allegations, and then determine whether or not the remaining
factual allegations state a plausible claim to relief. Id.
After reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, it plainly identifies the parties, the asserted
patents, the accused products, and the patent claims allegedly infringed. As to the allegedly
infringed claims, the Complaint essentially lifts the applicable claim language directly from
the respective patents and baldly asserts that the accused products meet “all the limitations”
Case 1:17-cv-00010-MSM-LDA Document 15 Filed 05/22/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-4-
of the claim. 	The Complaint does not include any particular factual allegations concerning
the presence of any claim limitation in an accused product. 2 After stripping away the
conclusory legal allegations, the Complaint is bare on facts, and such facts are not sufficient
to state a plausible claim for relief.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I recommend that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 11)
be GRANTED. 	However, I also recommend that it be GRANTED without prejudice and
with leave to amend within thirty days. Defendant has not shown any prejudice or bad faith
conduct that might support denial of leave to amend at this early stage.
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed
with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of its receipt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR
Cv 72. Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to
review by the District Court and the right to appeal the District Court’s decision. See United
States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1 st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor
Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1 st Cir. 1980).
/s/ Lincoln D. Almond
LINCOLN D. ALMOND
United States Magistrate Judge
May 22, 2017
2 	Plaintiff argues that Exhibit C to Defendant’s Motion (Document No. 11-4) – a lengthy letter responding to the
Complaint – shows that the Complaint was sufficient to place Defendant on notice of the factual allegations
against it. (Document No. 13-1 at p. 6). While Defendant’s counsel may well have had enough information to
prepare a substantive response to the allegations, the applicable pleading requirements require that Plaintiff
plead enough facts to state a plausible infringement claim in its Complaint.
Case 1:17-cv-00010-MSM-LDA Document 15 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>