Ausco Prods. Inc. v. Axle Inc.

Partial Dismissal of Patent Infringement Claims Over 'Wet Brake' Explained

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ausco Products, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that defendants Axle, Inc. (“Axle”), Imaginative Mfg., Inc. (“Imaginative”), and Scott Austin (“Austin”) (collectively “Defendants”) have infringed certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 9,249,846 (the “’846 Patent”), and 9,835,211 (the “’211 Patent.”). (Dkt. 1). Currently pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint (Dkt. 15) and Plaintiff’s crossmotion for leave to amend in the event the Court finds the Complaint inadequately pleaded (Dkt. 17). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denies Plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to amend. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the Complaint. As required at this stage of the proceedings, the Court treats these facts as true. Plaintiff is a manufacturer of brake assemblies and the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’846 and ’211 Patents. (Dkt. 1 at

6-7). The ’846 Patent issued on February 2, 2016, and is entitled “Brake Assembly.” (Id. at 12). Independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’846 Patent “are generally directed to a brake assembly adapted to be mounted to the flange of an axle housing.” (Id. at 13). The ’211 Patent issued on December 5, 2017, and is also entitled “Brake Assembly.” (Id. at 40). Independent claims 1, 7, 8, 11, and 16 of the ’211 Patent “are generally directed to a brake assembly adapted to be mounted to the flange of an axle housing.” (Id. at 41). Austin is the Chief Executive Officer of Axle and Imaginative. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that both Axle and Imaginative are “a manufacturer or importer and seller of brake assemblies,” including a product known as the “Wet Brake.” (Id. at

Ausco Prods. Inc. v. Axle Inc.

Partial Dismissal of Patent Infringement Claims Over 'Wet Brake' Explained

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal