Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02042/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02042-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER

ASSISTED SURGERY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MED-SURGICAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. 10-02042 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 12)

On May 12, 2010, Plaintiff California Institute of Computer

Assisted Surgery, Inc. filed a complaint alleging infringement of

four patents by Defendant Med-Surgical Services, Inc. On June 17,

2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2010,

Plaintiff filed an opposition. Having considered all the papers

filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to

dismiss. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate

only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of

a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. Bell

Case 4:10-cv-02042-CW Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

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

considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim,

the court will take all material allegations as true and construe

them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc.

v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). However, this

principle is inapplicable to legal conclusions; "threadbare

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements," are not taken as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550

U.S. at 555). Although “legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

allegations. Id. at 1950.

When granting a motion to dismiss, the court is generally

required to grant the plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request

to amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile. 

Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911

F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that, except for

conclusory allegations, Plaintiff fails to identify any device that

embodies the patent or any activity that can be described as

infringement. 

 Title 35 U.S.C. § 271 defines patent infringement as the

making, using, offering to sell, or selling without authority of

any patented invention within the United States or the importation

to the United States of any patented invention. Actively inducing

infringement of a patent is actionable under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b). 

Case 4:10-cv-02042-CW Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

Importing, offering to sell or selling a component of a patented

device or a material or apparatus used in a patented process that

constitutes a material part of the invention is actionable as

contributory infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

Plaintiff alleges that it owns four patents, the ‘239 patent,

the ‘130 patent, the ‘758 patent and the ‘794 patent, which are

used to perform endoscopies and in “volumetric image navigation.” 

Pl.’s Compl. 2-3. For each of its four patents, Plaintiff alleges

that, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant 

has and continues to directly infringe, contributorily

infringe, and/or induce the infringement of [the patents] by

making, using, offering to sell, licensing, and/or selling

products, systems, and/or processes that are covered by the

claims of the inventions contained in [the patents]. 

Specifically, Med-Surgical’s use of CBYON Systems infringes on

one or more of the claims of [the patent].

Pl.’s Compl. at 3-5. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, costs,

compensatory and special damages, as well as treble damages and

fees. 

Plaintiff’s complaint merely reiterates the bare elements of

patent infringement. It fails to allege with any specificity what

CBYON systems is and how it infringes upon any of its four patents. 

Because it fails to provide the factual grounds on which its

infringement claims rest, it does not state a legally cognizable

claim. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted. 

Citing Devices for Med., Inc. v. Boehl, 822 F.2d 1062, 1063

(Fed. Cir. 1987), Defendant argues in its reply that Plaintiff’s

claims should be dismissed with prejudice because “[P]lantiff

failed to provide the requisite statement regarding notice prior to

filing suit,” and thus damages are unavailable. Def.’s Reply at 7. 

Case 4:10-cv-02042-CW Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

Defendant also relies on Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (stating, in relevant part, “plaintiff has complied with

the statutory requirement . . . and has given the defendant written

notice of the infringement”) and McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501

F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting that the sample complaint

provided in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Form 18 is sufficient

to state a claim for patent infringement). 

The court in McZeal noted that “a patentee need only plead

facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice as to

what he must defend” and did not, contrary to Defendant’s argument,

require notice separate from filing the complaint. Id. at 1357. 

Although Defendant relies on the elements provided in Form 18, the

forms in the appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

merely “illustrate the simplicity and brevity that these rules

contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84. In other words, the forms do

not provide the elements of the substantive law. Title 35 U.S.C.

§ 287 limits liability for patent infringement by requiring a

patentee to give notice to the public of the patent by marking the

patented product with the word “patent” along with the patent

number. Boehl, 822 F.2d at 1063; see also SRI Int’l, Inc. v.

Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc., 127 F.3d 1462, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

If the patented product is not labeled as such, damages are

recoverable for infringement only for the period after the

infringer has received notice of the patent and continues to

infringe. 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). The filing of an action for

infringement constitutes such notice. Id.

Although Plaintiff’s complaint is lacking in specificity, it

Case 4:10-cv-02042-CW Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

provides Defendant with notice of Plaintiff’s patents and of the

risk of liability for infringement. Even if Plaintiff did not

provide Defendant with notice prior to filing the complaint,

damages are available from the date the complaint was served on

Defendant. Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff’s complaint should be

dismissed with prejudice because lack of notice prior to serving

the complaint precludes an award of damages, therefore, is without

merit. 

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff fails to allege with specificity any facts

that support the inference that a product of Defendant’s infringes

the claims protected by the ‘239, ‘130, ‘758 and ‘794 patents,

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket No. 12). 

Dismissal, however, is with leave to amend for Plaintiff to remedy

this deficiency, if it can truthfully do so. Plaintiff has twentyone days from the date of this order to submit an amended

complaint. If Plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint

within this time, the complaint will be dismissed. Defendant may

submit a responsive motion twenty-one days thereafter. Plaintiff

has two weeks from the date Defendant’s motion is filed to submit

an opposition. Defendant’s reply is due one week after that. The

hearing and case management conference is set for October 28, 2010

at 2:00 pm. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-02042-CW Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 5 of 5