United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
L. Miller, Jr. Judge
Trim-Lok, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint is before the court. For the following reasons, the
court grants the motion.
second amended complaint, like its predecessors, contains
claims for direct infringement, induced infringement, and
contributory infringement of Lifetime Industries, Inc.'s
‘590 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 6, 966, 590) in violation
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and (c). Trim-Lok
moved to dismiss because Lifetime Industries hasn't cured
the defects in its prior complaints.
Standard of Review
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court
construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, and
draws all inferences in the nonmoving party's favor.
Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d 1143, 1146
(7th Cir. 2010). But Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) “demands more
than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see also Morrison v.
YTB Int'l, Inc., 649 F.3d 533, 538 (7th Cir. 2011);
Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). A
claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556); Mann v. Vogel, 707 F.3d 872, 877 (7th Cir.
2013); Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404
(7th Cir. 2010) (“the plaintiff must give enough
details about the subject-matter of the case to present a
story that holds together.”). “[L]egal
conclusions or conclusory allegations that merely recite a
claim's elements” are not entitled to any
presumption of truth. Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630,
632 (7th Cir. 2012). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (“Threadbare recital of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.”). Twombly and Iqbal
“require the plaintiff to provid[e] some specific facts
to support the legal claims asserted in the compliant.”
McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th
Cir. 2011). The plaintiff “must give enough details
about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that
hold together, ” and “may elaborate on [its]
factual allegation so long as the new elaborations are
consistent with the pleadings.” Id.
summarized, the second amended complaint alleges that:
owns a patent for a “two-part seal for a slide-out
room” on a mobile living quarters (“RV”) -
U.S. Patent No. 6, 966, 590 (the “‘590
patent”). [Doc. Nos. 32 at ¶¶ 9-11 and 32-1
LTI seals are marketed under the name EK-Seal and KE-Seal,
and “include a mounting portion and a separate bulb
portion that is slidably connected to the mounting
portion.” [Doc. No. 32 at ¶ 13].
Trim-Lok also makes, sells, and offers for sale “a two
part seal” (the “Accused Product”)
specifically for use with an RV with a slide-out room,
without authorization by LTI. [Doc. Nos. 32 at ¶¶
14, 20, 24, 26-27, 34 and 32-2 (Exh. B)].
Trim-Lok “gained knowledge of LTI's patent from at
least one former LTI employee (Andrew Busch and/or Daryl
Torrey) before June, 2013”. [Doc. No. 32 at
“In or around June 2013", Trim-Lok infringed on
“at least one claim of the ‘590 patent”, in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by “making,
using, offering for sale, and selling” its two-part
seal to at least one RV manufacturer, Forest River;
“assist[ing] with the installation, direct[ing] the
installation, or directly install[ing] [a Trim-Lok seal] on
an RV at Forest River”; and “combining the
Accused Product with RVs having slide-out rooms”,
without authorization by LTI. [Doc. No. 32 at ¶¶
14-15, 20, 24, and 26-33].
Ksiezopolski, a LTI representative, discovered that a the
Trim-Lok seal had been installed on one of Forest River's
RVs during a visit to Forest River's Elkhart, Indiana
manufacturing plant in June 2013. [Doc. No. 32 at ¶ 16].
July 12, 2013, LTI sent a cease and desist letter notifying
Trim-Lok that: it was infringing on LTI's ‘590
patent by “selling a seal that [was] covered by the
‘590 patent”; “further sales of the seal
[would] constitute willful infringement”; and Trim-Lok
was required to immediately discontinue “all infringing
product” and to account for “all sales made to
date of products practicing the inventions which is the