Form 18 Insufficient for Joint Patent Infringement Pleadings: Federal Circuit | Practical Law

Form 18 Insufficient for Joint Patent Infringement Pleadings: Federal Circuit | Practical Law

In Lyda v. CBS Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Form 18 of the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is insufficient to plead joint patent infringement claims, which are instead governed by the Iqbal and Twombly pleading standards.

Form 18 Insufficient for Joint Patent Infringement Pleadings: Federal Circuit

Practical Law Legal Update w-003-7321 (Approx. 3 pages)

Form 18 Insufficient for Joint Patent Infringement Pleadings: Federal Circuit

by Practical Law Intellectual Property & Technology
Published on 03 Oct 2016 • USA (National/Federal)
In Lyda v. CBS Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Form 18 of the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is insufficient to plead joint patent infringement claims, which are instead governed by the Iqbal and Twombly pleading standards.
On September 30, 2016, in Lyda v. CBS Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the US District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of a joint patent infringement claim, and ruled that Form 18 of the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is insufficient to plead joint infringement claims ( (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016)). The Federal Circuit ruled that joint patent infringement pleadings are instead governed by the standard from Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Iqbal) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Twombly).
Edwin Lyda owned US Patent Nos. 7,434,243 and 7,730,506, directed to input devices that allow game show audience members to vote electronically in response to cues during the show. Lyda sued CBS Corp. for patent infringement based on an audience voting system on its television show Big Brother. The district court determined that:
  • Lyda had sued under a joint infringement theory.
  • Form 18 of the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides pleading requirements and a sample pleading for direct patent infringement, generally is insufficient to plead joint infringement claims.
  • Even under Form 18, the allegations were too vague to articulate a claim for relief.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's analysis of Lyda's complaint and ruled that Form 18 is insufficient to plead joint infringement claims. Instead, because joint infringement requires additional elements not addressed by Form 18, joint infringement pleadings must meet the Iqbal and Twombly standard.
Under that standard, a party making a joint infringement claim must plead facts sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that all steps of the claimed method are performed and that either:
  • One party exercises direction or control over the others' performance.
  • The actors form a joint enterprise such that performance of every step is attributable to the controlling party.