Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01923/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01923-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CBS Corporation
Appellee
CBS Interactive, Inc.
Appellee
Edwin Lyda
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EDWIN LYDA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CBS CORPORATION, CBS INTERACTIVE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1923

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:14-cv-06572-VEC, 

Judge Valerie E. Caproni.

______________________ 

Decided: September 30, 2016

______________________ 

 DAVID FINK, Fink & Johnson, Houston, TX, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. 

 JASON C. WHITE, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 

Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by SCOTT D. SHERWIN; THOMAS M. PETERSON, San 

Francisco, CA; STEPHANIE GAMIZ, New York, NY.

______________________ 

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2016
2 LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

Appellant Edwin Lyda appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New 

York dismissing his complaint of patent infringement 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lyda v. 

CBS Corp., No. 14-CV-6572-VEC, 2015 WL 4393120 

(S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2015). We hold that Form 18 does not 

apply to a claim of joint patent infringement. Because 

Mr. Lyda’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for 

relief under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, we 

affirm the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Lyda is the named inventor on United States Patent Nos. 7,434,243 and 7,730,506. According to the 

patents, audience members of game shows or reality 

programs often use input devices to electronically vote in 

response to cues during the shows. In particular, the ’243 

and ’506 patents cover methods and systems for “obtaining real time responses to remote programming” by 

“allow[ing] persons viewing or listening to a broadcast to 

respond to the broadcast in real time without requiring a 

personal computer.” ’243 patent col. 1 ll. 14–15, 56–58; 

’506 patent col. 1 ll. 16–17, 57–59. The specifications 

describe that “the present invention provides a response 

device for each person who is listening to/viewing a program.” ’243 patent col. 1 ll. 62–64; ’506 patent col. 1 

ll. 63–65. This response device is “configured to allow the 

audience member to send response data.” ’506 patent 

col. 7 ll. 47–48. The specifications describe embodiments 

of the response device ranging from a key pad that is 

“limited to the choices available to the user presented by 

the key pad,” to a full alpha-numeric key pad for “unlimited entry possibilities.” Id. col. 5 ll. 62–67; ’243 patent 

col. 5 ll. 53–58. The audience members input their vote 

along with an “identifier code” that identifies the person 

voting. The responses are sent over a “standard commuCase: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2016
LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION 3

nication system,” such as a telephone line or a two-way 

paging network. ’243 patent col. 1 l. 66; ’506 patent col. 1 

l. 67. The responses are collected at a central location, 

correlated with the identifier code, and tallied. “If the 

programming is being presented live as the responses are 

sent in, the program presenter can incorporate the responses into the programming and modify the programming to meet the audience’s needs.” ’506 patent col. 5 ll. 

37–41; see also ’243 patent col. 5 ll. 28–32. 

The Amended Complaint asserts four independent 

claims: method claim 8 and system claim 9 of the 

’243 patent, and method claim 1 and system claim 7 of the 

’506 patent. Independent method claim 1 of the 

’506 patent is representative of the asserted claims and 

recites:

1. A method for receiving and processing responses to a program comprising:

providing a program identifier code for the 

program;

providing means for identifying an audience 

member[;]

providing a user input device not requiring a 

personal computer, the device configured to allow 

the audience member to send response data directly from the user input device over a standard 

communication system in response to the program 

received apart from the device, the device operating without receiving program data;

having the audience member input the program identifier code into the user input device;

having the audience member input responses 

to the program received apart from the device into 

the user input device;

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/30/2016
4 LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION

transmitting response data comprising the 

program identifier code, the means for identifying 

an audience member, and the responses over the 

standard communication system;

collecting the response data at a central location;

correlating the program identifier code to the 

responses; 

processing the response data.

’506 patent col. 7 ll. 42 – col. 8 l. 3. 

Claim 9 of the ’243 patent and claim 7 of the ’506 patent, while identified as “system” claims in their preambles, recite the same method steps as claim 1. In effect

then, the system claims should be treated as method 

claims. For example, claim 7 of the ’506 patent recites: 

7. A system for receiving and processing responses to a program comprising:

providing a program identifier code for the 

program being presented;

providing a user input device not requiring a 

personal computer, the device configured to allow 

an audience member to send response data directly from the user input device over a standard 

communication system in response to the program 

received apart from the device, the device operating without receiving program data;

having the audience member input the program identifier code into the user input device;

having the audience member input responses 

to the program received apart from the device into 

the user input device;

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/30/2016
LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION 5

transmitting the program identifier code and 

the responses associated with a user identifier 

over the standard communication system;

collecting, correlating, and processing the program identifier and the responses;

routing the responses to a program presenter.

Id. col. 8 ll. 23–43. 

Mr. Lyda sued Defendants CBS Corporation and its 

wholly owned subsidiary CBS Interactive, Inc. (collectively, “CBS”) for infringement of the ’243 and ’506 patents

for producing and operating the television show “Big 

Brother.” After CBS notified Mr. Lyda of alleged deficiencies in the original complaint, Mr. Lyda filed the Amended Complaint at issue here. The Amended Complaint 

alleged that Defendants’ operation of the television show 

Big Brother infringed Mr. Lyda’s patents by allowing 

television audience members to influence aspects of the 

show by voting via text message on their cellular phones. 

The text messages allegedly used codes identifying the 

sender and the sender’s vote selection. 

The Amended Complaint asserts eight nearly identical counts of infringement based on the four asserted 

independent claims against each of the two defendants.1 

For each of the four claims, method and system claims 

alike, the Amended Complaint alleges “the participation 

of people under the control or direction of an independent 

contractor engaged by the Defendant CBS Interactive to 

send votes using text messages.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 24, 

31, 38. 

 

1 The two remaining counts, Count Five and Count 

Ten, allege willful infringement based on the infringement claims. 

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/30/2016
6 LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION

The Amended Complaint further alleges that CBS Interactive tested the system’s capability to receive text 

message responses prior to using the system during live 

broadcasts. The Amended Complaint indicates that such 

testing was carried out by an independent contractor, 

“[a]pparently under the control of Defendant CBS Interactive.” Id. ¶ 8. These independent contractors, themselves 

under the direction and control of CBS Interactive, allegedly directed and controlled unnamed third parties to test 

the voting operations using “well known cell phones” that 

they either owned or borrowed from some unidentified 

source. Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Lyda alleged that Defendant CBS 

Corporation infringed the asserted patents “by having 

Defendant CBS Interactive operate the show Big Brother 

and use an independent contractor in conjunction with 

testing the system under the control of Defendant CBS 

Interactive.” Id. ¶¶ 18, 25, 32, 39. For example, in Count 

One, Mr. Lyda alleged the following:

16. BIG BROTHER tests . . . its electrical systems 

such as audience voting using cell phones to send

. . . text messages along with the computer processing systems under the control of Defendant 

CBS Interactive for compiling votes as well [as] 

other electrical system functions anticipated for 

conducting a major show on television before a 

live audience.

17. The testing of text voting operations by Defendant CBS Interactive using cell phones sending 

text messages requires the participation of people 

under the control or direction of an independent 

contractor engaged by the Defendant CBS Interactive to send votes using text messages using 

well known cell phones either their own respective 

cell phones, or borrowed cell phones to test the 

electronic text voting system used by Defendant 

CBS Interactive for its show BIG BROTHER.

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/30/2016
LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION 7

Id. ¶¶ 16, 17. 

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint 

for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). During an initial pre-trial conference, 

the district court judge informed Mr. Lyda that, pursuant 

to the judge’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases,

he could either amend the complaint a second time, or 

oppose the motion and forfeit his ability to further amend 

the complaint. Mr. Lyda elected to oppose the motion to 

dismiss.

In evaluating Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court addressed the parties’ dispute regarding the 

type of infringement involved and the applicable pleading 

standard. The court determined that while the Amended 

Complaint “certainly leaves room for doubt regarding 

Plaintiff’s theory of liability,” the allegations regarding an 

“independent contractor” acting under the direction or 

control of CBS Interactive implicated a theory of joint 

infringement. Lyda, 2015 WL 4393120, at *3. While this 

court has not directly spoken on the issue of whether 

Form 18 applies to a claim of joint infringement, the 

district court noted that the general consensus among 

district courts was “that Form 18 does not apply to joint 

infringement claims.” Id. The court determined, nonetheless, that Plaintiffs did not allege joint infringement 

and that “Plaintiff’s allegations are simply too vague, 

even under the Form 18 standard, to articulate a claim for 

relief.” Id. 

The court determined that Mr. Lyda “fail[ed] to establish which of Defendants’ alleged practices constitutes 

infringement, and he fail[ed] to demonstrate any connection between the alleged infringing activities and his 

patent claims.” Id. According to the court, the Amended 

Complaint’s bare allegations that CBS Interactive “operat[ed] the show” by “us[ing] an independent contractor 

in conjunction with testing the system,” made it “simply 

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 7 Filed: 09/30/2016
8 LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION

impossible to discern what actions, activities, services, or 

products are infringing Plaintiff’s patents.” Id. at *4. The 

district court thus concluded that the Amended Complaint’s allegations were “simply too vague to conform 

even with the generous pleading standard set forth under 

Form 18.” Id. Accordingly, the district court granted 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Mr. Lyda an 

opportunity for further amendments because “leave to 

replead would be futile.” Id. at *5. 

Mr. Lyda appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

We apply the law of the regional circuit, here the Second Circuit, in reviewing motions to dismiss. See OIP 

Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 

(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (2015). According 

to the Second Circuit, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege sufficient 

facts, taken as true, to state a plausible claim for relief.” 

Johnson v. Priceline.com, Inc., 711 F.3d 271, 275 (2d Cir. 

2013) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

555–56 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009). Facial plausibility exists when the court can 

“draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 

Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

I.

For claims of direct patent infringement, this court 

has determined that the pleading requirements of Form 

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 8 Filed: 09/30/2016
LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION 9

18 suffice to survive a motion to dismiss.2 See In re Bill of 

Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 

F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Form 18, in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is titled 

“Complaint for Patent Infringement” and provides a 

sample allegation of direct infringement. We have stated

that when used properly, Form 18 “effectively immunizes 

a claimant from attack regarding the sufficiency of the 

pleading.” K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, 

Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted). 

Form 18 has the following minimal requirements:

(1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement 

that the plaintiff owns the patent; (3) a statement 

that defendant has been infringing the patent “by 

making, selling, and using [the device] embodying 

 

2 The Appendix of Forms, including Form 18, and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84, which provides that 

the forms “suffice under these rules,” were both eliminated from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure following 

changes that took effect on December 1, 2015. When 

adopting these changes, the Supreme Court stated that 

the rule change “shall govern in all proceedings in civil 

cases thereafter commenced [after December 1, 2015] and, 

insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then 

pending.” Supreme Court of the United States, Order 

Regarding Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (U.S. Apr. 29, 2015), 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcv15(u

pdate)_1823.pdf. Defendants argue that because Form 18 

has been abrogated, it does not apply to this case. But the 

Amended Complaint was filed in 2014, and the case was 

terminated when the complaint was dismissed in July 

2015. Accordingly, we determine that the repeal of Form 

18 does not apply to this case.

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 9 Filed: 09/30/2016
10 LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION

the patent”; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has 

given the defendant notice of its infringement; 

and (5) a demand for an injunction and damages.

In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1334.

As we explained in In re Bill of Lading, Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 84 provides that “the forms in the 

Appendix suffice under these rules and illustrate the 

simplicity and brevity that these rules contemplate.” Id.

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 84). Rule 84 and its accompanying Advisory Committee Notes indicate that the forms 

satisfy the rules as to the sufficiency of pleading direct 

infringement. Id. Therefore, whether a complaint adequately pleads direct infringement is “to be measured by 

the specificity required by Form 18.” Id. Moreover, “to 

the extent any conflict exists between Twombly (and its 

progeny) and the Forms regarding pleadings requirements, the Forms control.” K-Tech, 714 F.3d at 1283. 

We have also held that allegations of induced or contributory infringement, which have additional elements 

not found in direct infringement claims, are not governed 

by Form 18. In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1336; Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Glob. Enters. Ltd., 700 F.3d 

1287, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Form 18 does not determine 

the sufficiency of pleading for claims of indirect infringement.”). “Rather, the pleading requirements set forth in 

[Twombly and Iqbal] apply” to claims of induced and 

contributory infringement. Superior, 700 F.3d at 1295. 

We have not, however, expressly considered whether 

claims of joint infringement should be measured by the 

sparse requirements of Form 18.

“Direct infringement under § 271(a) occurs where all 

steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight 

Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en 

banc). While a typical claim of direct infringement requires proof that a defendant performs each step of the

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 10 Filed: 09/30/2016
LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION 11

claimed method, joint infringement requires more. To 

prove joint infringement, where multiple actors are involved in practicing the claim steps, the patent owner 

must show that the acts of one party are attributable to 

the other such that a single entity is responsible for the 

infringement. This court has held that an entity will be 

responsible for others’ performance of method steps in two 

circumstances: “(1) where that entity directs or controls 

others’ performance, and (2) where the actors form a joint 

enterprise.” Id. Therefore, like claims of induced or 

contributory infringement, allegations of joint infringement require elements beyond those for the more typical 

act of direct infringement to which Form 18 is directed. 

We agree with the district courts that have addressed 

this issue and concluded that the pleading requirements 

for joint infringement are not satisfied by Form 18. See, 

e.g., Nu Flow Techs. (2000) Inc. v. A.O. Reed & Co., No. 

13-CV-1818 BEN JMA, 2014 WL 1400127, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

Apr. 8, 2014). Because joint infringement requires additional elements not addressed by Form 18, we hold that 

allegations of joint infringement must be measured by the 

Iqbal and Twombly standard without reference to Form 

18. Id. (“Form 18 also does not address joint infringement. To be consistent with the requirement that allegations of indirect infringement meet the pleading standard 

of Twombly and Iqbal, courts have required allegations of 

joint infringement to meet the same pleading standard.”). 

A claim of joint infringement thus 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 

others’ performance or (2) the actors form a joint enterprise such that performance of every step is attributable 

to the controlling party. See Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1022.

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 11 Filed: 09/30/2016
12 LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION

II.

A.

Mr. Lyda’s complaint does not explicitly indicate

whether CBS infringes the asserted patents under a 

single or joint theory of direct infringement. The Amended Complaint, however, alleges that “Defendant CBS, as 

owner of the Defendant CBS Interactive, controls the 

operations of the Defendant CBS Interactive,” 

Am. Compl. ¶ 13, and therefore that the purported steps 

taken by CBS Interactive are attributed to CBS. The 

Amended Complaint further alleges infringement by “the 

participation of people under the control or direction of an 

independent contractor” hired by CBS Interactive and 

“the computer processing systems under the control of 

Defendant CBS Interactive.” See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 16–18. It 

also alleges that the independent contractors direct or 

control unnamed people to use their own or borrowed cell 

phones to vote. Id. ¶ 17. These allegations implicate joint 

infringement, which Mr. Lyda’s counsel acknowledged 

during oral argument when he agreed that the Amended 

Complaint asserts a joint infringement theory of direct 

infringement. See Oral Argument at 4:15–4:22, available 

at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=

2015-1923.mp3. 

Our cases have applied joint infringement to method 

claims and not system claims. See Centillion Data Sys. 

LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1284

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (analyzing system claims under a different framework: “to ‘use’ a system for purposes of infringement, a party must put the invention into service, 

i.e., control the system as a whole and obtain benefit from 

it”). As we discussed above, the purported system claims 

asserted in this case are, in fact, method claims because 

the body of the claims require the performance of particular method steps. Moreover, the Amended Complaint 

pleads the system claims like the method claims, alleging 

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 12 Filed: 09/30/2016
LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION 13

direction or control over the independent contractors, who 

in turn direct or control the unnamed third parties.3 

Therefore, we conclude that each count of the Amended 

Complaint implicates joint infringement.4

B.

We note that Mr. Lyda does not attempt to argue that 

the Amended Complaint satisfies the Twombly/Iqbal

pleading standard outside of relying on Form 18. Because 

we hold that Form 18 does not apply to claims of joint 

infringement, and because Mr. Lyda has not plausibly 

pled a claim of joint infringement in satisfaction of the 

Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard, we affirm the district 

court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). 

The Amended Complaint relies on a direction or control theory of joint infringement and does not plead that 

 

3 We recognize that claims reciting both a system 

and the method steps of using the system are indefinite 

under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. IPXL Holdings, 

L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (“Because [the claim] recites both a system and the 

method for using that system, it does not apprise a person 

of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid 

under section 112, paragraph 2.”). As noted above, the 

“system” claims here recite method steps, and the 

Amended Complaint pleads the system claims like method claims. Therefore, we, like the district court, treat 

them as method claims for this 12(b)(6) analysis. 

4 We do not address the situation where claim construction may be necessary to resolve the question of 

whether the claim terms require joint infringement. 

Here, each count of the Amended Complaint unequivocally alleges the participation of multiple parties, and 

Mr. Lyda’s counsel acknowledged as much during oral 

argument. 

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 13 Filed: 09/30/2016
14 LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION

Defendants are in a joint enterprise with the independent 

contractors. To survive a motion brought under Rule 

12(b)(6), the Amended Complaint must 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. 

See Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1022. The Amended Complaint 

alleges that CBS Interactive controls certain independent 

contractors who in turn direct and control the “participation” of unnamed third persons to send votes on either 

their own or borrowed cell phones. Mr. Lyda does not set 

forth any factual allegations in support of his assertion 

that CBS Interactive directed or controlled the independent contractors. Nor does the Amended Complaint contain factual allegations relating to how the independent 

contractors directed or controlled the unnamed third 

parties. Most importantly, the Amended Complaint 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 

Amended Complaint alleges conclusively and without 

factual support that CBS directed or controlled the independent contractors who then directed or controlled the 

unnamed third parties. There are thus no allegations in 

the Amended Complaint that can form the basis of a 

reasonable inference that each claim step was performed 

by or should be attributed to Defendants. The Amended 

Complaint fails to plausibly plead sufficient facts to 

ground a joint infringement claim under this court’s 

Akamai decision and does not satisfy the Iqbal/Twombly

pleading standard. See Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1022. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that dismissal 

of the Amended Complaint was proper.

III.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Lyda further leave to amend the complaint. 

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 14 Filed: 09/30/2016
LYDA v. CBS CORPORATION 15

Mr. Lyda amended the complaint once, and declined the 

opportunity to amend the complaint a second time, deciding instead to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The 

district court’s rules of practice freely allow a plaintiff to 

amend its complaint in the face of a motion to dismiss, 

but curtails leave to amend where the plaintiff declines to 

do so until after the court finds the pleadings insufficient. 

E.g., Honorable Valerie E. Caproni, Individual Rules of 

Practice in Civil Cases § 3.E.i (2015). We see no reason to 

disturb the district court’s application of its own internal 

rules, which fall within its broad power to control its 

docket. See Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 

797 F.3d 1025, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, we cannot 

say that the court abused its discretion in denying 

Mr. Lyda leave to amend his complaint. 

CONCLUSION

Because we hold that Form 18 does not apply to 

claims of joint infringement, and because the Amended 

Complaint does not satisfy the Iqbal/Twombly pleading 

standard, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the 

Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Moreover, the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in denying Mr. Lyda leave to amend his 

complaint a second time. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Appellees.

Case: 15-1923 Document: 37-2 Page: 15 Filed: 09/30/2016