Kamal v. Femtosense, Inc. and Sam Fok

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended patent infringement complaint, as well as the plaintiff’s motions to stay discovery and for a preliminary injunction. The court recommends granting dismissal with prejudice because the amended complaint failed to plausibly identify accused products and map the asserted patent limitations, and because the civil-rights claims lacked state action. It further recommends denying the remaining motions as moot and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Holdings

1. A complaint alleging direct patent infringement must plausibly indicate that the accused products contain each limitation of the asserted patent claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint failed to meet that requirement because it did not identify the accused Femtosense product or coherently map the claim limitations to the product's operations.
2. Because the amended complaint did not plausibly plead direct infringement, it also failed to state claims for indirect infringement and willful infringement.
3. The amended complaint did not state a plausible civil-rights claim because defendants were not alleged to be state actors.
4. After dismissal of the federal patent and civil-rights claims, the court recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state-law tort claims.
5. The motion for a preliminary injunction and the motion to stay discovery were moot because dismissal of the amended complaint eliminated a live basis for those requests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly pleaded direct patent infringement under Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Whether the amended complaint could support claims for indirect and willful patent infringement.
3. Whether the defendants, private parties, could be liable for the alleged civil-rights violations as state actors.
4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law tort claims after dismissal of the federal claims.
5. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction or a stay of discovery after dismissal of the amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed