United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
SKYWALKER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Plaintiff,
YJIP Inc., a Texas corporation, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Benson United States District Judge.
the Court is Defendant YJIP Inc. (YJIP)'s Motion to
Dismiss. Dkt. 76. The motion has been fully briefed by both
parties. YJIP is represented by Robert Mason and Skywalker
Holdings, LLC (Skywalker) is represented by James Burton and
Joshua Rupp. Neither party requested oral argument and the
Court finds that oral argument is not necessary nor would it
be helpful in this matter. Based on the written arguments of
the parties and on the relevant facts and the law, the Court
hereby enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
March, 2016, YJIP's attorney, Robert Mason, sent a letter
to Skywalker asserting rights under United States Patent No.
D555, 222 (patent ‘222), and alleging that twenty-four
of Skywalker's products infringe the patent. Following a
series of communications between counsel for both companies,
Skywalker filed this action seeking declaratory judgment of
non-infringement and invalidity of the patent. Dkt. 2. YJIP
filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and in
the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. 42.
YJIP argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over YJIP and
that Skywalker's claim of patent invalidity should be
dismissed for failing to meet the requirements of Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 at 555-56, 570
(2007). The Court held in abeyance YJIP's motion
regarding personal jurisdiction pending completion of
jurisdictional discovery by Skywalker. Dkt. 56. The Court
granted YJIP's motion to dismiss Skywalker's
declaratory judgment of the patent invalidity claim. Dkt. 56.
The Court granted Skywalker leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint. Dkt. 74. Skywalker filed its Third Amended
Complaint reasserting its two claims for relief. Dkt. 75.
YJIP has now filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). Dkt. 76.
argues that Skywalker's non-infringement claim should be
dismissed because Skywalker failed to assert a sufficient
factual basis to state a claim that is “plausible on
its face, ” pursuant to Twombly; 555 U.S. at
544. Skywalker disputes this argument and additionally
contends that YJIP has waived its right to bring this motion
because it could have and should have been included in
YJIP's initial Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed earlier in this
action. Dkt. 42.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g) provides that “a party
that makes a motion under this rule must not make another
motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that
was available to the party but omitted from its earlier
motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(g)(2). The Second Amended
Complaint contained the identical cause of action for
non-infringement as that alleged in the Third Amended
Complaint. The argument YJIP makes here with regard to this
cause of action could have been made in YJIP's previous
Rule 12(b)(6) motion and was not. In failing to make the
argument at that time, the Court finds, pursuant to Rule
12(g)(2), that YJIP has waived its right to move for
dismissal of the non-infringement claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Sufficiency of Pleading
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 679
(2009). The complaint must provide “fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Even if YJIP
had not waived its right to bring this motion to dismiss the
non-infringement claim, the Court finds that the factual
allegations set forth in the Third Amended Complaint are
sufficient to meet the requirements prescribed in
Iqbal and Twombly. The allegations in the
Third Amended Complaint are sufficient to state a declaratory
judgment claim for non-infringement of patent ‘222
“‘that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqubal, 556 U.S.at 676 (2009)(quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
also asserts that Skywalker has failed to allege sufficient
facts to support its claim for declaratory judgment of
invalidity of patent ‘222 under Twombly.
Specifically, YJIP argues that Skywalker's factual
allegations are insufficient to support that the patent is:
(1) invalid under ...