1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Pieczenik v. Bayer Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2012)

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPApril 3, 2012

    The District Court granted the motion, and Dr. Pieczenik appealed. The Federal Circuit begins by noting that while pro se litigants are generally held to a lesser standard than lawyers with regard to whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, a complaint must still contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). With respect to Dr. Pieczenik's infringement claim, which the District Court dismissed, the Federal Circuit explained that: The complaint states that the '363 patent is infringed by defendant Invitrogen's sale of "vectors for the display of combinatorial libraries" and "DynaBeads for Phage Display and BioPanning," id.