Niazi, Imran v. Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc.

Brief in Opposition

W.D. Wis.December 30, 2016

{01044748.DOCX / } 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Imran Niazi Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:16-cv-670-jdp Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc., Defendant. NIAZI’S OPPOSITION TO PRESSURE PRODUCTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The pleading standard of Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me” accusation. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. 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. Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. This Court has held that, for patent infringement cases, “the old Form 18 approach is still generally sufficient to articulate a plausible claim for direct infringement.” Palmer Hamilton, LLC v. AmTab Mfg. Corp., No. 16-CV-522-JDP, 2016 WL 6775458, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 15, 2016). “Twombly/Iqbal does not require a plaintiff to prove its case in the complaint, or even convince anyone that it has a good case.” Id. “The allegations in the complaint just have to get over the low hurdle of plausibility.” Id. “In most patent cases, especially those like this one Case: 3:16-cv-00670-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 12/30/16 Page 1 of 4 {01044748.DOCX / } 2 involving mechanical devices, identifying the claims asserted and the devices accused will be enough to do the job.” Id. Here, Niazi’s complaint satisfies the old Form 18 standard by identifying the patent, i.e., U.S. Patent 6,638,268 (“the ‘268 patent”) attached as Exhibit A to the complaint (Doc. 1-1), the infringing products, i.e., Pressure Products’ SafeSheath® CSG® Braided Core, the SafeSheath® CSG® Extruded, and the SafeSheath® Worley® LVI, and an exemplary claim of the ‘268 patent that is infringed, i.e., claim 1, thus permitting the court to draw the reasonable inference of patent infringement. See, e.g., Complaint (Doc. 1), ¶¶ 7-16. Pressure Products does not dispute that Niazi’s complaint satisfies the old Form 18 standard. Instead, Pressure products seems to argue that this is a “rare” case where more is needed to clear the low hurdle of plausibility because the catheters at issue are “complex medical devices,” Pressure Products Brief (Doc. 11), pg. 7. On the contrary, the claims here, e.g., claim 1, recite simple mechanical structures - similar to the collapsible booth of Palmer Hamilton - that are readily identifiable within the accused products. This is not a “rare” instance involving a “complex, unusual case” where the old Form 18 standard will not suffice. See Palmer Hamilton. Moreover, Niazi’s complaint goes beyond the requirements of old Form 18 - and of this Court - by walking through an exemplary claim element-by-element with respect to one of the accused products. See Palmer Hamilton at * 1 (holding that “this court will not require plaintiff to plead direct infringement element-by-element”). Accordingly, Pressure Products’ motion as to direct infringement should be denied. Pressure Products further argues that that “Niazi should be required to provide clear notice of the devices accused in order to allege a plausible claim for direct infringement.” Pressure Products Brief (Doc. 11), pg. 7. However, Niazi has identified the accused products by Case: 3:16-cv-00670-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 12/30/16 Page 2 of 4 {01044748.DOCX / } 3 the tradenames that Pressure Products uses throughout its advertising and marketing materials. Pressure Products’ feigned confusion as to which of its products are accused at this stage of the case should be disregarded.1 As for Niazi’s inducement and contributory infringement claims, Niazi has sufficiently pleaded the additional requirements for each. As noted by this Court in Palmer Hamilton, inducement requires direct infringement by a third party and the defendant’s knowledge and specific intent to encourage the infringement. Palmer Hamilton at * 2. Niazi’s complaint contains allegations directed to these elements. See, e.g., Complaint (Doc. 1), ¶ 21 (pleading that Pressure Products was aware of the ‘268 patent prior to being put on notice by Niazi); ¶ 22 (pleading that end users have directly infringed the ‘268 patent); ¶ 23 (pleading that Pressure Products has encouraged end users to infringe the ‘268 patent); and ¶ 24 (pleading that Pressure Products knew that the use by end users would infringe the ‘268 patent). Contributory infringement requires an act of direct infringement, defendant’s knowledge that the combination for which its components were especially made was both patented and infringing, and a showing that defendant’s components have no substantial non-infringing uses. Palmer Hamilton at * 2. Niazi’s complaint contains allegations directed to these elements. See, e.g., Complaint (Doc. 1), ¶ 21 (pleading that Pressure Products was aware of the ‘268 patent prior to being put on notice by Niazi); ¶ 25 (pleading that Pressure Products knew the Infringing Products were made or adapted for a use that would infringe the ‘268 patent); ¶ 26 (pleading that the Infringing Products are not commonly available items with substantial non-infringing uses; 1 Pressure Products suggests that Niazi’s complaint identifies a fourth product, i.e., the SafeSheath®CSG® Coronary Sinus Guide, which is distinct from the list of Infringing Products in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. However, this is the name that appears at the top of Pressure Products’ product sheet for the Safesheath®CSG® Braided Core introducer system. Thus, based upon Pressure Products’ website and marketing materials, the Safesheath®CSG® Braided Core introducer system and SafeSheath®CSG® Coronary Sinus Guide appear to be the same product. Case: 3:16-cv-00670-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 12/30/16 Page 3 of 4 {01044748.DOCX / } 4 and ¶ 24 (pleading that Pressure Products knew that use of the Infringing Products by end users would infringe the ‘268 patent). Finally, as discussed above, Niazi’s complaint contains allegations directed to Pressure Products’ knowledge of the ‘268 patent and that the Infringing Products infringe the ‘268 patent, and that despite this knowledge Pressure Products continues to sell the Infringing Products and encourages end users of its products to infringe the ‘268 patent. Thus, Niazi’s complaint has stated a plausible case for willful infringement. Pressure Products’ motion as to inducement, contributory infringement, and willful infringement should be denied. Conclusion WHEREFORE, Niazi respectfully requests that the Court deny Pressure Products’ motion to dismiss. Dated: December 30, 2016 s/Michael T. Griggs Michael T. Griggs Sarah M. Wong Kyle M. Costello BOYLE FREDRICKSON, S.C. 840 N. Plankinton Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: 414-225-9755 Facsimile: 414-225-9753 Attorneys for Plaintiff Imran Niazi Case: 3:16-cv-00670-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 12/30/16 Page 4 of 4