Flow Valve LLC v. Forum Energy Technologies Inc.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Intellectual Property Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Patents
  • Date Filed: 07-18-2014
  • Case #: CIV-13-1261-F
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
  • LexisNexis Citation: 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97736
  • Full Text Opinion

The pleading standard for a patent infringement case is determined by the facts and circumstances surrounding the action.

Opinion (Friot): Plaintiff Flow Value LLC is an Oklahoma limited liability company. Defendant Mr. Woods is an individual representing Forum Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Flow Value LLC brought suit against Mr. Woods for patent infringement. Mr. Woods filed a motion to dismiss the patent infringement claim for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements. Form 18 provides the pleading requirements that must be met to satisfy the pleading standard. A patent infringement pleading must include the following: “(1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff owns the patent; (3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the patent by making, selling, and using the device embodying the patent; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for an injunction and damages.” Mr. Woods alleged that Flow Value LLC failed to meet the third and fourth prongs of the pleading standard. The court held that the amount of detail required to satisfy the third prong of the pleading standard is determined by the facts and circumstances surrounding a case. Although Flow Valve LLC failed to state a “specific device or product” in its pleading, a “general category of products” is sufficient to meet the third prong of the pleading standard. The fourth prong is also satisfied because Mr. Woods was previously employed by Flow Valve and knew the patent at issue was pending approval. Therefore, Mr. Woods had adequate notice of the alleged infringement. As a result Mr. Wood's motion to dismiss the patent infringement claim filed by Defendant is DENIED.

Advanced Search