My wife and I organize our visits to New Orleans around food – specifically bread pudding. If time permits, we’ll hit Palace Cafe for white chocolate bread pudding, Commander’s Palace (where we were engaged, by the way) for the bread pudding souffle, and BonTon for, um, whiskey garnished with a little bread pudding. All good, but different. Motions are like that too. In the last month I’ve posted on Twiqbal decisions by Judges Payne, Mazzant and Albright, and a few weeks earlier, Judge Kernodle. Today I have the same analysis but with its own unique flavor (perhaps honey?) from Judge Gilstrap.
It’s a short order, but if I had an order that said “[i]n its well-researched and written motion” about my motion, I’d be puffed up like a toad. Well, at least until I got to the part that it was denied anyway.
This is a Twiqbal motion in a patent infringement case that seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim, asserting that the facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient to state a claim that is “plausible.” The Court’s analysis provides a useful example of what needs to be in a complaint to meet this standard.
It never fails – I posted on all the dispositive motion rulings that have come out from Franklin Avenue, and another one pops up. So let’s see what we can learn about the sufficiency of infringement pleadings this afternoon.
Following the addition of U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle to the Eastern District of Texas bench late last year, most of the Tyler docket, including this case, was reassigned from Judge Gilstrap and Judge Schroeder to Judge Kernodle. Judge Kernodle just entered an order denying the defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim which argued that the patents in suit claimed ineligible subject matter.