Case 8:10-cv JDW-EAJ Document 86 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID 913

Transcription

1 Case 8:10-cv JDW-EAJ Document 86 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID 913 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION AMERICAN IMAGING CARTRIDGE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; INNOVATIVE CARTRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Florida corp.; and PLATINUM MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida corp., vs. Plaintiffs, RONALD ROMAN, d/b/a RTR ENTERPRISES, an individual; ACM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corp.; ALPHA IMAGE TECH, a California corp.; ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., a North Carolina corp.; CARDINAL CARTRIDGE, INC., an Illinois corp.; DENSIGRAPHIX, INC., a New York corp.; DIAMOND DIGITAL GROUP, INC., a California corp.; E- TONER MART, INC., a California corp.; IMAGEWORKS, INC., a California corp.; INK TECHNOLOGIES PRINTER SUPPLIES, LLC, a Ohio Corp.; K&W INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. d/b/a K&W IMAGING, INC., a California corp.; KALON CORP., a California corp.; KALON INTERNATIONAL, a California corp.; KIWI GROUP CORP., a California corp.; LASER TONER TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Georgia corp.; COPY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Georgia corp.; LD PRODUCTS, INC., a California corp.; LTS TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California corp.; MATRIC KOLOR, INC., a Virginia corp.; SINOTIME TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Florida corp.; MEXTEC GROUP, INC., d/b/a MIPO AMERICA, LTD, a Florida CASE NO: 8:10-cv-2789-T-23EAJ PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT [DOCKETS 26, 33, 35, 40, 41, AND 42]

2 Case 8:10-cv JDW-EAJ Document 86 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID 914 corp.; MONOPRICE, INC., a California corp.; NANO PACIFIC CORP., a California corp.; POWER IMAGING SUPPLY, INC., a California corp.; PRINTER ESSENTIALS.COM, INC., a Delaware corp.; R&L IMAGING GROUP, INC., a California corp.; TARGET IMAGING LTD., a California corp.; TTI IMAGING, INC., a Texas corp.; JOHN DOE 1 d/b/a BB Office Supply; and JOHN DOES 2-10, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT [DOCKETS 26, 33, 35, 40, 41, AND 42] COMES NOW Plaintiffs, American Imaging Cartridge, LLC, Innovative Cartridge Technology, Inc., and Platinum Manufacturing International, Inc., by and through their undersigned attorneys, and responds in opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss (Dockets 26, 33, 35, 40, 41 and 42 and shows the Court as follows: Plaintiffs have brought an action against multiple Defendants for infringement of certain of Plaintiffs patents involving innovations relating to the imaging industry. Several of the Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss, all of which generally track the same objection, i.e., that the recent decision of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct (U.S. 2009, and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007, somehow alter the pleading requirements of patent cases, rendering the existing Complaint subject to dismissal. The primary complaint seems to focus on the failure to specifically identify which patents are allegedly infringed by 2

3 Case 8:10-cv JDW-EAJ Document 86 Filed 05/25/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID 915 each Defendant. As discussed herein, Plaintiffs believe the Complaint fully complies with the law, Rules of Federal Civil Procedure and the authorized Patent Complaint Form, which was not altered by the Supreme Court s holdings. However, Plaintiff does understand the objections of the Defendants and has offered to amend the Complaint to more specifically identify which patents are addressed to which of the objecting Defendants. Unfortunately, at least one Defendant has refused to consent to the Motion for Leave to Amend, thus requiring the Court to either rule on the pending Motions to Dismiss or grant the Motion for Leave to Amend over this Defendant s objection. If the Amendment were permitted, the Motion to Dismiss would be rendered moot. All that is required is the Complaint plead sufficient factual basis to state claims for infringement that are plausible on their face. Neither Rule 8(a(2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor the Supreme Court s decisions in Iqbal or Twombly require anything more. The Eleventh Circuit has confirmed that Iqbal did not impose a heightened pleading standard for cases governed by Rule 8(a(2. See, Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 710 (11 th Cir Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at The Courts are also provided guidance through approved form pleadings, including an approved form for a complaint for patent infringement. Under Rule 1 Regional Circuit law applies to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for patent infringement. McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, (Fed. Cir

4 Case 8:10-cv JDW-EAJ Document 86 Filed 05/25/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID , the forms in the Appendix suffice under these Rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity that these Rules contemplate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 84. Form 18 provides a sample complaint for patent infringement and does not require extensive factual pleading, contrary to the suggestions of the Motions to Dismiss. Instead, as the form outlines, one need only identify that Plaintiffs owns the patents, that Defendants have infringed the patents, and that Plaintiffs request relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. Form 18 (2007; see also. McZeal, 501 F.3d at (describing the requirements of the 2006 form, then Form 16. The Supreme Court s decisions in Twombly and Iqbal have not affected the adequacy of Form 18. Indeed, Twombly acknowledges that altering the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be accomplished by judicial interpretation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569, n. 14. Thus, a patent complaint that complies with Form 18 is sufficient to state a cause of action. McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir Here, Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 8 by following the template of Form 18, and therefore state a claim for patent infringement. Nothing more is required. Traffic Info., LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2010; Minsurg Int l, Inc. v. Frontier Devices, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court deny the pending Motions to Dismiss, or alternatively, grant leave to amend the Complaint, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 4

5 Case 8:10-cv JDW-EAJ Document 86 Filed 05/25/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID 917 Respectfully submitted May 25, /s/brian R. Gilchrist Brian R. Gilchrist, Florida Bar # bgilchrist@addmg.com Jeffrey S. Boyles, Florida Bar # jboyles@addmg.com ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A. 255 South Orange Avenue, #1401 Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, FL Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 25, 2011, the foregoing was submitted for filing to the Clerk of the District Court by using the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF", which will send a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF participants: Richard L. Stroup Amanda J. Dittmar FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC Counsel for Ronald Roman, Laser Toner Technology, Inc, Copy Technologies, Inc., TTI Imaging, Inc. William Cooper Guerrant, Jr. HILL WARD HENDERSON, PA 101 E Kennedy Blvd - Ste 3700 PO Box 2231 Tampa, FL Counsel for Ronald Roman, Laser Toner Technology, Inc, Copy Technologies, Inc., TTI Imaging, Inc. 5

6 Case 8:10-cv JDW-EAJ Document 86 Filed 05/25/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID 918 Charles H. Suh FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Freedom Drive Ste. 800 Reston, VA Counsel for Ronald Roman, Laser Toner Technology, Inc, Copy Technologies, Inc., TTI Imaging, Inc. Richard E. Mitchell GRAY ROBINSON, PA 301 E Pine St - Ste 1400 PO Box 3068 Orlando, FL Counsel for Monoprice William A. Kebler BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER 501 First Ave North, Suite 900 St Petersburg, FL Counsel for Arlington Industries, Inc. Stephen J. MacIsaac Stephen MacIsaac, PA 2525 Park City Way, Suite 202 Tampa, FL Counsel for Nano Pacific Corp. G. Donovan Conwell, Jr. James M. Matulis CONWELL KIRKPATRICK, PA 2701 N. Rocky Point Drive, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL Counsel for LD Products, Inc. Hongwei Shang THE LAW OFFICE OF HONGWEI SHANG, LLC 9100 S Dadeland Blvd #1500 Miami, FL Counsel for Power Imaging Supply and Sinotime Technologies Geoffrey E. Parmer GEOFFREY PARMER, PA 2525 Park City Way Tampa, FL Counsel for Diamond Digital Group Timothy J. Vezeau Martin T. LeFevour KATTEN, MUCHIN, ROSENMAN, LLP 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL Counsel for Arlington Industries, Inc. Gary M. Hnath MAYER BROWN, LLP 1999 K St NW Washington, DC Counsel for Nano Pacific Corp. Marc N. Bernstein Alice Garber The Bernstein Law Group, P.C. 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA Counsel for LD Products, Inc. /s/brian R. Gilchrist Brian R. Gilchrist, FL Bar #