Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Skywalker Holdings LLC v. YJIP Inc.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

March 1, 2018

SKYWALKER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
YJIP Inc., a Texas corporation, Defendant.

         Judge Dee Benson

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Dee Benson United States District Judge.

         Before 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.

         BACKGROUND

         In 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.

         DISCUSSION

         A. NON-INFRINGEMENT CLAIM

         1. Waiver

         YJIP 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.

         Federal 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).

         2. Sufficiency of Pleading

         Determining 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).

         B. INVALIDITY CLAIM

         YJIP 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.