In ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's indirect infringement claims, the court found that Twombly and Iqbal, not Form 18, controlled. "Since [Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)] and [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)], the district courts have been split on the appropriate standard to apply when deciding whether a complaint alleging induced infringement or contributory infringement (i.e. indirect infringement) survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. . . . [T]he court agrees with the cases requiring that indirect infringement claims satisfy the pleading standards announced in Twombly and Iqbal. . . . Form 18 appears to apply only to direct infringement claims, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide an analogous form for indirect infringement claims."
Asentinel LLC v. AnchorPoint, Inc., et. al., 2-10-cv-02706 (TNWD August 3, 2011, Order) (Pham, M.J.)