Not necessarily.

Advanced Screenworks, LLC sued Gold Star Ventures and its owner for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 8,146,647 for “Screen Clipping System and Clips Therefor.”   Advanced alleges that Gold Star infringes the ‘647 Patent by:

making, using, offering to sell, and selling products, methods, and apparatuses for the screening of windows, doors, pool cages, and patios, including [Defendant’s] “Screening Buddy Dual Purpose Screen Retainer System” … which comes within the scope of the [‘647 Patent] without authority or license from [plaintiff].

Advanced further alleges that Gold Star has infringed on “at least claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ‘647 Patent.”  But identifying the patent and the specific claims infringed was not sufficient to survive dismissal:

An allegation of direct patent infringement is “insufficient under Twombly and Iqbal if it simply recites some of the elements of a representative claim and then describes generally how an accused product operates, without specifically tying the operation to any asserted claim or addressing all of the claim requirements.” Blue Water Innovations, LLC v. Fettig, 2019 WL 1904589, *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2019) (citation omitted).

Because Advanced “does not sufficiently tie any specific operation to a patent claim,” Gold Star’s motion to dismiss is granted.  The Court did grant leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Advanced Screeworks, LLC v. Mosher, Case No. 2:19-civ-758-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2020) (J. Steele)