Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180226_0000109.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:59:54+00:00

Document:
FindACase | LEO Pharma A/S v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.
LEO Pharma A/S v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.
ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., Defendant.
Presently before the court in this patent infringement action brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act is the motion to dismiss the inequitable conduct counterclaim of defendant Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. ("Actavis"), filed by plaintiffs LEO Pharma A/S, LEO Laboratories Limited ("LEO Labs"), and LEO Pharma, Inc. ("LEO Pharma") (collectively, "LEO") pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D.I. 104) For the following reasons, I recommend that the court grant LEO's motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Umland v. Planco Fin. Servs., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), 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)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.
When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps. See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010). First, the court must identify the elements of the claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675. Second, the court must identify and reject conclusory allegations. Id. at 678. Third, the court should assume the veracity of the well-pleaded factual allegations identified under the first prong of the analysis, and determine whether they are sufficiently alleged to state a claim for relief. Id.; see also Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). The third prong presents a context-specific inquiry that "draw[s] on [the court's] experience and common sense." Id. at 663-64; see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal, "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to relief" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.