Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01140/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENMARK DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff

CASE NO. 14CV1140 BEN (JLB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Docket No. 28]

vs.

VIRONOVATIVE BV., a Dutch

Limited Liability Company, et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant ViroNovative BV (“ViroNovative”) moves to dismiss portions of

the first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth claims of Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

(Docket No. 28). ViroNovative asserts that declaratory Plaintiff Genmark

Diagnostics, Inc., (“Genmark”) has failed to sufficiently plead its claims for noncontributory and non-induced infringement of ViroNovative’s patents. The Court

disagrees and DENIES ViroNovative’s Motion to Dismiss.

BACKGROUND1

Genmark is a molecular diagnostics company that sells respiratory viral panels

(“RVP products”) used in the diagnosis of respiratory infections. (SAC ¶¶ 10-11). 

 The facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s SAC except where noted. 1

- 1 - 14cv1140

Case 3:14-cv-01140-BEN-JLB Document 40 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Genmark is involved in the development and commercialization of “proprietary

electrochemical detection technology that enables fast, accurate and highly sensitive

detection of up to 72 distinct bio-markers in a single sample.” (SAC ¶ 10). 

ViroNovative owns several patents on technology in the area of human

metapneumovirus (“hMPV”), which is one of the viruses responsible for respiratory

infections. (SAC ¶ 12). ViroNovative’s technology is associated with the “isolation

and detection of hMPV.” (SAC ¶ 12). Defendant MedImmune, LLC (“MedImmune”)

is the co-assignee with ViroNovative of some of the patents. (SAC ¶ 13).

Genmark alleges that ViroNovative contacted Genmark in 2014 insisting that

Genmark was infringing technology covered by ViroNovative’s patents (“patents in

suit”) and Genmark needed to obtain a license. (SAC ¶ 14). In April 2014,

2

ViroNovative informed Genmark’s management of the alleged infringement, gave a

“take it or leave it” demand, and threatened to enforce the patents if Genmark did not

agree to the proposed licensing terms. (SAC ¶ 15). 

Genmark brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Genmark’s 

products do not infringe any valid claims of the patents in suit (SAC, Prayer for

Relief). Genmark alleges the claims of the patents in suit are invalid and that

Genmark’s products and conduct do not infringe the patents in suit, including

contributory and induced infringement. (SAC ¶ 17). 

The claims of non-contributory and non-induced infringement are at issue in

this motion. ViroNovative moves to dismiss the portions of the first, third, fifth,

seventh, and ninth claims for relief that allege non-contributory and non-induced

 U.S. Pat. No. 7,449,324 (“the ’324 Patent”), entitled “Metapneumovirus strains and 2

their use in vaccine formulations and as vectors for expression of antigenic sequences;” U.S.

Pat. No. 7,531,342 (“the ’342 Patent”), entitled “Metapneumovirus strains and their use in

vaccine formulations and as vectors for expression of antigenic sequences;” U.S. Pat. No.

7,704,720 (“the ’720 Patent”), entitled “Metapneumovirus strains and their use in vaccine

formulations and as vectors for expression of antigenic sequences and methods for propagating

virus;” U.S. Pat. No. 8,715,922 (“the ’922 Patent”), entitled “Virus causing respiratory tract

illness in susceptible mammals;” and U.S. Patent 8,722,341 (“the ’341 Patent”), entitled

“Metapneumovirus strains and their use in vaccine formulations and as vectors for expression

of antigenic sequences.” (SAC ¶ 14).

- 2 - 14cv1140

Case 3:14-cv-01140-BEN-JLB Document 40 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

infringement for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

DISCUSSION

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78

(2009). “A claim is facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.’” Zixiang Li v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). A claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It

“does not need detailed factual allegations,” but “requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Under Federal Circuit authority, direct infringement claims are not required to

meet the pleading standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal because the patentee need

only meet the requirements of Form 18. In re Bill of Lading Transmission and

Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding direct

infringement must be plead to the specificity of Form18 ). However, contributory and

3

induced infringement claims are subject to Twombly and Iqbal. Id. at 1337 (finding

the Form 18 pleading standard only applies to direct infringement and Iqbal

plausibility standard applies to indirect infringement claims). Although neither party

has cited the Court to any authority dictating the pleading standard for noncontributory and non-induced infringement in a declaratory judgment action, itseems

reasonable to apply Iqbal’s plausibility standard given that standard applies to

contributory and induced infringement claims.

///

“Form 18 sets forth a sample complaint for direct patent infringement.” In re 3

Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1334 (finding Form 18 controls to the extent its pleading

standard conflicts with Twombly and its progeny). 

- 3 - 14cv1140

Case 3:14-cv-01140-BEN-JLB Document 40 Filed 02/25/15 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

However, finding the plausibility standard applies does not resolve this motion.

The question the Court must answer is whether Genmark has stated a plausible claim

for non-contributory and non-induced infringement. ViroNovative argues that

Genmark’s non-contributory and non-infringement claims are only plausible if

Genmark explains its RVP products, explains the differences between its RVP

products and the claims of the patents in suit, and identifies the elements of the patent

claims that are allegedly not infringed. Genmark counters that it has plead all the

information available to it without the benefit of ViroNovative’s infringement

contentions and ViroNovative is essentially asking it to plead every conceivable

reason its products do not infringe. 

The Court finds that Genmark need not plead the specificity that ViroNovative

demands for two reasons. First, the pleading ViroNovative actually challenges is

direct infringement, a claim ViroNovative does not challenge and concedes is not

subject to the plausibility standard. Second, the detailed factual pleading

ViroNovative demands fails to take into account that this is a declaratory action. 

ViroNovative is attempting to impose, at a minimum, the plausibility pleading

standard on direct infringement claims when, as ViroNovative concedes, only Form

18 compliance is required. Although the distinctions between Genmark’s RVP

products and the patents in suit are certainly relevant to the non-contributory and noninducement claims, these facts go to direct infringement. ViroNovative is essentially

demanding more factually detailed pleading of non-direct infringement than is

required via the non-contributory and non-inducement claims. However,

ViroNovative does not challenge Genmark’s non-direct infringement claims in this

motion and as explained below, Genmark has sufficiently plead it is not engaging in

conduct that would give rise to indirect infringement. 

Genmark brought this action seeking a declaration that it does not infringe

ViroNovative’s patents. The action was prompted by ViroNovative’s charge that

Genmark was infringing its patents and demands that Genmark pay for a license on

- 4 - 14cv1140

Case 3:14-cv-01140-BEN-JLB Document 40 Filed 02/25/15 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ViroNovative’s terms. This is different from all the cases ViroNovative cites. Those

cases address the required pleading for plaintiff patentees alleging contributory or

induced infringement by an infringing defendant. Here, Genmark does not know

every way ViroNovative believes Genmark is infringing to potentially counter in the

SAC. Additionally, it is not clear that even if Genmark did know every alleged basis

for ViroNovative’s charge of infringement that Genmark would be required to plead

the exact opposite to give ViroNovative notice of the claims against it. What

ViroNovative demands for notice is that Genmark not only plead a negative — how

Genmark does not infringe — but every negative — every conceivable way Genmark

does not infringe, i.e. every distinction between Genmark’s products and the patents

in suit. ViroNovative demandstoo much when even the plausibility standard does not

require “detailed factual allegations.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

Genmark alleges that its importation, sale and offersto sell its RVP products do

not infringe and that the products themselves do not infringe. Genmark also alleges

it does not aid, encourage or cause its customers to use its RVP products in an

infringing manner. ViroNovative criticizes these allegations for largely tracking the

statutory language, but there islittlemore to plead withoutrequiring Genmark to plead

every conceivable distinction between its RVP products and the patents in suit. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, ViroNovative’s Motion to Dismiss Portions of

Genmark’s first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth Claims for Relief of the SAC is

DENIED. Defendants shall answer the SAC on or before March 16, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2015

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14cv1140

Case 3:14-cv-01140-BEN-JLB Document 40 Filed 02/25/15 Page 5 of 5