Joseph P Mathew

December 28, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

It is common for the parties to a commercial transaction or relationship to conclude that their circumstance requires more than a nondisclosure agreement.

By Anthony S. Volpe and Joseph P. Mathew

9 minute read

November 01, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

For many years prior to Dec. 1, 2015, patent infringement complaints were exempt from the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Prior to the change, FRCP 84 provided that infringement pleadings that complied with FRCP Form 18 automatically satisfied the pleading requirements of FRCP 8(a) and were effectively immunized against an ­attack regarding the sufficiency of the pleading. Compliance was relatively simple since Form 18 only required a direct ­infringement complaint to set forth: (1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff owns the patent; (3) a statement that the defendant has been infringing the patent by making, selling, or using a device embodying the patent; (4) a statement that the plaintiff gave the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) an injunction demand. (See McZeal v. Sprint Nextel, 501 F.3d 1354, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and K-Tech Telecommunications v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 1277, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2013).) The Dec. 1, 2015, federal rules changes brought a sea change to the requirements for pleading patent infringement. With the passing of Form 18 into legal history, patent infringement complaints are subject to the pleading requirements of FRCP 8; however, the courts are struggling to deal with the change and how to apply it to pre-existing complaints. This article presents a snapshot of the cases dealing with transiting to and defining the new requirements.

By Anthony S. Volpe 
and Joseph P. Mathew

17 minute read