UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Paul Michelotti,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-14441

Robert Bosch LLC, Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

Acting pro se, Plaintiff Paul Michelotti (“Michelotti”) filed this action against Robert

Bosch, LLC (“Bosch”), alleging patent infringement.

On March 11, 2015, Bosch filed a counterclaim along with its Answer and Affirmative

Defenses. (Docket Entry No. 8).

On March 30, 2015, Michelotti filed an “Answer And Motion To Dismiss

Counterclaims.” (Docket Entry No. 9). Thereafter, on April 16, 2015, Bosch amended its

Counterclaims. (Docket Entry No. 13). Bosch’s amended counterclaims are: 1) “Count I –

Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,023,221”; and 2) “Count II – Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No.

6,023,221.”

On April 28, 2015, Michelotti filed an “Answer And Motion To Dismiss Amended

Counterclaims.” (Docket Entry No. 15). Bosch filed a response on May 2, 2015. Michelotti

filed a Reply Brief on May 14, 2015. Thus, the parties have briefed Michelotti’s Motion to

Dismiss Amended Counterclaims. 

1

2:14-cv-14441-SFC-DRG Doc # 21 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 79
The Court finds that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. See Local Rule

7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The Court therefore orders that the

motion will be decided without a hearing. As such, IT IS ORDERED that the hearing

previously scheduled for July 16, 2015, is CANCELLED.

Michelotti’s “Motion”1 consists of four paragraphs wherein he asserts that the allegations

in Bosch’s amended counterclaims “have not been proven,”and that Bosch has “provided denials

but no evidence in support of” its amended counterclaims. Not only are those arguments

undeveloped in the motion, but such arguments are not properly before the Court in motion to

dismiss brought prior to discovery.

In his motion, Michelotti also asserts that “[c]hallenges to patentability must be heard by

the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 6 and applicable federal

regulations.” (Docket Entry No. 15). Michelotti has not developed this argument in his motion

and it is not clear what he is attempting to argue. To the extent that he asserts that this Court

lacks jurisdiction over patent claims, the argument is without merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (“The

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any act of

Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks.”)

In his Reply Brief, Michelotti appears to make additional arguments that were not

included in his motion. (Docket Entry No. 18). Arguments made for the first time in a reply

brief are generally not considered because such a practice deprives the non-moving party of its

opportunity to address those arguments. See, e.g., Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th

1

In violation of Local Rule 7.1, Michelotti did not file a brief along with the motion. The

motion appears to be more akin to a statement of affirmative defenses than an actual motion to

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

2

2:14-cv-14441-SFC-DRG Doc # 21 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 80
Cir. 1986); Ryan v. Hazel Park, 2007 WL 1174906 (E.D. Mich. 2007). This Court declines to

address any argument raised by Michelotti for the first time in his Reply Brief. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Michelotti’s Motion to Dismiss Bosch’s Amended

Counterclaims is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2015 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on July 2, 2015, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record via

electronic means and upon Paul Michelotti via First Class mail at the address below:

Paul Michelotti 

2850 Banyan Boulevard Circle 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

S/ J. McCoy 

Case Manager 

3

2:14-cv-14441-SFC-DRG Doc # 21 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 81