In a ruling entered on February 24, 2010 in Eidos Communications, LLC v. Skype Technologies SA, Civil Action No. 09-234 (D.Del.), The Honorable Sue L. Robinson granted the motion of defendants, Skype Technologies, SA and Skype, Inc. (“Skype”), to dismiss plaintiffs’ patent infringement complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement. After analyzing the complaint, the Court concluded that plaintiffs’ complaint failed failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Twombly. This case is informative on the minimum requirements necessary by plaintiffs in identifying products or methodologies in their patent infringement complaints.
In their complaint, plaintiffs’ alleged that (1) Skype produce, offer for sale, sell and/or import “communication systems products and/or methodologies that infringe one or more claims” of each of plaintiffs’ patents; and (2) Skype’s “communication system products and/or methodologies” meet each and every limitation of at least one claim of each patent. However, no specific products or methodologies were named in the complaint.
In granting Skype’s motion, the Court found that plaintiffs’ complaint in this action failed to even provide a general product category even analogous to “electric motors.” The Court also found that plaintiffs’ complaint failed to mimic Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Form 18, which sets forth a sample complaint for patent infringement that meets the Twombly pleading standard, insofar as no category of product or general identification of process or method is identified.