The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's indirect infringement claims for failure to state a claim where plaintiff did not identify the nonparties who infringed. "Plaintiff’s allegations of indirect infringement do not . . . identify the parties other than the named defendants that directly infringe. Rather, Plaintiff only alleges that the named defendants 'have contributed to or induced, and continued to contribute to or induce, others to infringe the [patent-in-suit].' . . . While Form 18 does not set a high bar for what must be alleged, Plaintiff has not met that bar. The Court has high expectations of a plaintiff’s preparedness before it brings suit. Thus, the Court expects that Plaintiff already has sufficient knowledge of facts that it can include in its complaint that would give the named defendants sufficient notice of the indirect infringement claims alleged against them. The Court does not require in a complaint the specificity that P.R. 3-1 requires, as that would go far beyond Rule 8's and Form 18's requirements, but some greater specificity is required here."
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., et. al., 6-11-cv-00492 (TXED May 14, 2012, Order) (Davis, J.)