Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00058/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00058-0/pdf.json

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

1 09cv58 BTM (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENS ERIK SORENSEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv58 BTM (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY AND GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs.

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC.,

Defendant.

There are two motions before the Court. The first motion is Plaintiff’s unopposed

Motion to Dismiss Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and Strike Affirmative

Defense “D” [Doc. 19.] The second motion is Defendant Motion to Stay [Doc. 18.] For the

following reasons, both motions are GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

1. Motion to Dismiss Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and Strike Affirmative

Defense “D”

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment makes only

conclusory statements and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In

deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all allegations contained in the

counterclaim—but this requirement is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, –

U.S. –, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

Case 3:09-cv-00058-BTM-CAB Document 26 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 3
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 09cv58 BTM (CAB)

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Plaintiff’s motion is

unopposed.

Here, Count II of Defendant’s counterclaim is nearly devoid of factual assertions.

Defendant only alleges that “[t]he claim of the ‘184 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103, and/or 112.” This threadbare statement is precisely the type of allegation that is

insufficient to state a claim under the Iqbal standard. Accordingly, Count II of Defendant’s

counterclaim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Plaintiff also argues that Affirmative Defense D should be struck for similar reasons.

Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an affirmative defense must be pled

with the minimal specificity to give the plaintiff “fair notice” of the defense. Wyshak v. City

Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, Defendant’s Affirmative Defense D

merely states, “One or more claims of the ‘184 patent are invalid for failure to comply with

the conditions of patentability set forth in title 35 of the United States Code, including §§ 101,

102, 103 and/or 112.” Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 provide several grounds for finding

a patent invalid, and Defendant has failed to give Plaintiff fair notice of the basis of its

affirmative defense. Advanced Cardiovascular Syss., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., No. C-96-0942,

1996 WL 467273, at *3 (July 24, 1996). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is GRANTED,

and the Court strikes Affirmative Defense D from Defendant’s answer without prejudice.

2. Motion to Stay

Defendant has moved to stay this case pending the outcome of PTO reexamination

proceedings regarding the patent at issue in this case. The Court concludes that a

reasonable stay is appropriate in this case because the litigation is in its early stages, Plaintiff

has not established undue prejudice, and the reexamination will simplify issues for the Court

and save expense for the parties. See, e.g., Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d

404, 406 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). The PTO’s recent communication rejecting all of the reexamined

claims in the ‘184 Patent provides further support for granting the stay. Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS the motion to stay without prejudice. If it appears, however, that the

Case 3:09-cv-00058-BTM-CAB Document 26 Filed 12/23/09 Page 2 of 3
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 09cv58 BTM (CAB)

reexamination will not be completed within a reasonable time, Plaintiff may move to vacate

the stay. 

Additionally, any party may apply to the Court for an exception to the stay if it has

specific, valid reasons to believe that it needs to obtain discovery in order to preserve

evidence that will otherwise be unavailable after the stay. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS both the Motion to Dismiss

Counterclaim and Strike Affirmative Defense [Doc. 19] and the Motion to Stay [Doc. 18.]

Defendant may file an amended answer within 45 days of the lifting of the stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 23, 2009

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00058-BTM-CAB Document 26 Filed 12/23/09 Page 3 of 3