United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAMELA L. REEVES, District Judge.
In Count I of this declaratory judgment action, the Protomet Corporation asks the Court to declare that Protomet is not infringing on the defendants' patent. Count II seeks a declaration that the defendants' patent is invalid or unenforceable. Presently before the Court is the defendants' second motion for dismissal of Count II under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because Protomet's complaint alleges no facts in support of its contention that the defendants' patent is invalid or unenforceable, Count II of Protomet's complaint will be dismissed.
Protomet, a manufacturing and engineering company in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, manufactures and sells a wakeboard rack called the "Clamp4rce." Mastercraft Boat Company sells its own wakeboard rack based on a patent held by James Shultz (the "'795 Patent"). In August 2013, Mr. Shultz and Mastercraft began writing to Protomet and Protomet's customers to inform them that Protomet's wakeboard rack infringed on Mr. Shultz's patent and to demand they refrain from making or selling Protomet's wakeboard rack. Based on the defendants' communications with Protomet and Protomet's customers, Protomet feared the defendants would bring a patent infringement suit against it. Accordingly, Protomet filed this action seeking declaratory relief.
In November 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss Count II of Protomet's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). [R. 11]. In response, Protomet filed an amended complaint, adding additional content Count II. [R. 14]. The defendants withdrew their initial motion to dismiss and filed a second motion to dismiss Count II of Protomet's amended complaint for the same reasons as before. [R. 16]. Protomet responded to their motion, and it is now ripe for consideration.
II. Standard of Review
Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the complaint to articulate a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This requirement is met when "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires the court to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all the complaint's factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the plaintiff's claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Meador v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 902 F.2d 474, 475 (6th Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 498 U.S. 867 (1990).
The court may not grant a motion to dismiss based upon a disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 377 (6th Cir. 1995) (noting that courts should not weigh evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses). The court must liberally construe the complaint in favor of the party opposing the motion. Id. However, the complaint must articulate more than a bare assertion of legal conclusions. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1988). "[The] complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Id. (citations omitted).
Count II of Protomet's amended complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss because it does not make any factual allegations in support its contention that the '795 Patent is invalid or unenforceable. Count II's allegations are as follows:
20. The claims of the '795 Patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to meet the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including, but not limited to, Sections 101, 102, 103, 112, and the rules and regulations pertaining thereto.
21. On information and belief, the '795 Patent is invalid for at least the reason that subject matter claimed in the '795 Patent was known and used by others before the invention thereof by the applicant for the '795 Patent.
22. On information and belief, the '795 Patent is invalid for at least the reason that any differences between subject matter claimed in the '795 Patent and prior art devises, such as, but not limited to, well-known spring-biased clamping devices, are such that the subject matter of the '795 Patent as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the '795 Patent pertains.
23. On information and belief, the '795 Patent is invalid for at least the reason that one or more of the claims of the '795 Patent contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with ...