Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Joint Infringement Allegations under Iqbal/Twombly Pleading Standard

Oct 7, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, CBS Corp. (CBS) and CBS Interactive, Inc. (“CBS Interactive”), directly infringed the claims of two patents—directed to obtaining real-time responses from audience members viewing a broadcast program—by operating the television show Big Brother, which allowed audience members to vote via text messaging. The complaint alleged that CBS and CBS Interactive directly infringed the patents by directing and controlling an independent contractor to conduct testing of Big Brother’s voting operations, and the contractor, in turn, under such direction and control directed and controlled unnamed third parties to test the text messaging on cellphones. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion, reasoning that the complaints failed to “demonstrate any connection between the allegedly infringing activity and [the] patent claims” and, thus, was “simply too vague to conform even with the generous pleading standard set forth under Form 18.” The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first ruled that because the complaint was filed before the effective date of repeal of Form 18 as the baseline pleading standard for allegations of direct infringement, such a repeal “did not apply to this case.” The court ruled that Form 18 does not apply to allegations of direct infringement based on a theory of joint infringement because “joint infringement requires additional elements not addressed by Form 18.” Instead, the court ruled that the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard applies. According to the court, under the Iqbal/Twombly standard, “[a] claim of joint infringement [] requires pleading facts sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that all steps of the claimed method are performed and either (1) one party exercises the requisite ‘direction or control’ over the other’s performance or (2) the actors form a joint enterprise such that performance of every step is attributable to the controlling party.” The court found that the plaintiff’s complaint implicated a theory of direction and control, not a theory of joint enterprise. Thus, the court required the plaintiff’s complaint to “plausibly allege that Defendants exercise the requisite ‘direction or control’ over the performance of the claim steps, such that performance of every step is attributable to Defendants.”

The court, however, found that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to meet this standard. Specifically, the court found:

[The complaint] does not set forth any factual allegations in support of [the] assertion that CBS Interactive directed or controlled the independent contractors. Nor does the [c]omplaint contain factual allegations relating to how the independent contractors directed or controlled the unnamed third parties. Most importantly, the [c]omplaint does not allege any relationship between the Defendants and the unnamed third parties, who own or borrow cell phones, in a way that the actions of these unnamed third parties should be attributed to Defendants. Rather, the [c]omplaint alleges conclusively and without factual support that CBS directed or controlled the independent contractors who then directed or controlled the unnamed third parties.

Thus, the court held that “[the c]omplaint fails to plausibly plead sufficient facts to ground a joint infringement claim [] and does not satisfy the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard,” and affirmed dismissal.

Lyda v. CBS Corp., et al., No. 2015-1923 (Fed. Cir. September 30, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.