IP Law Daily, PATENT—M.D. Pa.: Medical cart infringement claims tank against competitors, (Oct 2, 2014)
Law Firms Mentioned:Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney | Perkins Coie LLP | Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC
Organizations Mentioned:Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC | Capsa Solutions, LLC | Enovate Medical, LLC | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP | Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC | Howard Industries, Inc. | InterMetro Industries Corp. | Perkins Coie, LLP | Updike Kelly & Spellacy, PC
By Greg Hammond, J.D.
The owner of various patents for “point-of-care cart technology” failed to state valid patent infringement claims against various companies. The federal district court in Scranton, Pennsylvania therefore, in an omnibus opinion, granted three motions to dismiss the patent owner’s direct, indirect, and willful infringement claims (InterMetro Industries Corp. v. Capsa Solutions, LLC, September 30, 2014, Mariani, R.); (InterMetro Industries Corp. v. Enovate Medical, LLC, September 30, 2014, Mariani, R.); and (InterMetro Industries Corp. v. Howard Industries, Inc., September 30, 2014, Mariani, R.).
Background. InterMetro Industries Corp. is the owner of six patents for point-of-care cart technology. Specifically, the patented carts are designed to carry computers and display screens, to be used primarily in medical settings, so health care providers are able to move between patients with full access to electronic files. InterMetro filed suit against three companies—Enovate Medical, LLC, Howard Industries, Inc., and Capsa Solutions, LLC—alleging that they: directly infringed its patents by “making, using, offering for sale and selling, without InterMetro’s authority, computer carts that embody one or more of [each of its patents’] claims”; indirectly infringed its patents by inducing and contributing to other forms of similar infringement; and willfully infringed its patents. Enovate moved to dismiss the direct and indirect infringement claims, and Capsa and Howard moved to dismiss the willful infringement claims.
Enovate. In support of its motion to dismiss, Enovate first argued that InterMetro failed to provide prior notice of direct infringement, as required under Form 18. Conversely, InterMetro argued that the federal Circuit Court’s prior Form 18 notice requirement, as stated in In re Bill of Lading (381 F.3d at 1334), is an “unfortunate” mistake that does not correctly state the applicable law. The court disagreed with InterMetro’s argument, finding: (1) a different section of the Patent Statute requires notice as a precondition to recovering damages for infringement; (2) most of the cases InterMetro cites were decided before Bill of Lading stated the Form 18 requirement; and (3) the cases InterMetro cites that were decided after the Bill of Lading decision were not controlling on the district court.
Enovate also argued that the indirect infringement claims should be dismissed due to InterMetro’s conclusory allegations. The court agreed with Enovate, noting that InterMetro simply recited a series of conclusory statements devoid of “factual allegations [that] raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” The direct and indirect infringement claims were thus dismissed, but InterMetro was granted leave to amend.
Capsa and Howard. Both Capsa and Howard moved to dismiss the willful infringement claim, arguing that InterMetro failed to allege: (1) the defendants’ pre-suit knowledge of the patents at issue, or (2) that the defendants acted with objective recklessness. Once again, the court sided with the defendants, finding that “the facts that InterMetro alleges are not even sufficient to indicate that the Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patents, much less that they acted in spite of an objectively high likelihood of infringement.” The willful infringement claims against Capsa and Howard were therefore dismissed.
The case numbers are 3:13-CV-02853; 3:13-CV-02854; and 3:13-CV-02856.
Attorneys: George D. Moustakas (Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC) for InterMetro Industries Corp. Bryan D. Beel (Perkins Coie LLP) and Jan L. Budman, II (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney) for Capsa Solutions, LLC. Adam B. Marks (Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC) for Enovate Medical, LLC. John M. Mulcahy (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP) for Howard Industries, Inc.
Companies: InterMetro Industries Corp.; Capsa Solutions, LLC; Enovate Medical, LLC; Howard Industries, Inc.
Cases: Patent PennsylvaniaNews