Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortpleamotionintellectual propertypatentcorporationcivil proceduremotion to dismiss
tortpleamotionpatentcivil proceduremotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Taneja v. Familymeds Group, Inc., Not Reported in A.2d, 2010 WL 2573762, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. 73
View Case »
Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. 572, 144 S.Ct. 1680, 219 L.Ed.2d 275, 133 A.F.T.R.2d 2024-1805, 2024 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5377, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 310
View Case »
Mourad v. Automobile Club Ins. Ass’n, 186 Mich.App. 715, 465 N.W.2d 395, 59 USLW 2495, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,861, 6 IER Cases 193
View Case »
U.S. v. Guerrerio, 670 F.Supp. 1215
View Case »
Matter of John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 562 N.E.2d 69, 59 USLW 2329
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kilopass Technology Inc. v. Sidense Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 5141843

Facts

Kilopass Technology, Inc. markets a method for storing data in integrated circuits and holds over 40 patents, including three specific patents at issue in this case. Kilopass accused Sidense Corporation of copying its patented technology and misleading the market regarding its intellectual property status. The lawsuit was initiated on May 14, 2010, and after several amendments and motions, the second amended complaint was filed on October 14, 2010, alleging multiple claims against Sidense.

Kilopass Technology, Inc. markets a method for storing data in integrated circuits and holds over 40 patents, including three specific patents at issue in this case.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether Kilopass sufficiently stated claims for patent infringement, trade libel, and other torts against Sidense, and whether Sidense's motion to dismiss should be granted.

The main legal issues included whether Kilopass sufficiently stated claims for patent infringement, trade libel, and other torts against Sidense, and whether Sidense's motion to dismiss should be granted.

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a claim upon which relief can be granted, requiring sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a claim upon which relief can be granted, requiring sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Kilopass's allegations met the pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal. It found that Kilopass had adequately alleged ownership of the patents, the infringing actions by XMOS, and Sidense's knowledge of the patents. The court concluded that Kilopass's claims for patent infringement were plausible, while the trade libel claim lacked the necessary specificity.

The court analyzed whether Kilopass's allegations met the pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal.

Conclusion

The court denied Sidense's motion to dismiss the patent infringement and other claims but granted the motion regarding the trade libel claim, allowing Kilopass to amend that specific claim.

The court denied Sidense's motion to dismiss the patent infringement and other claims but granted the motion regarding the trade libel claim, allowing Kilopass to amend that specific claim.

Who won?

Kilopass Technology, Inc. prevailed in part as the court allowed most of its claims to proceed, indicating that it had sufficiently alleged facts to support its case.

Kilopass Technology, Inc. prevailed in part as the court allowed most of its claims to proceed, indicating that it had sufficiently alleged facts to support its case.

You must be