United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Judge
Sunrise Technologies, Inc. (“plaintiff”) alleges
defendant Cimcom Lighting, Inc. (“defendant”) is
liable for direct, contributory, induced and willful
infringement of one of its patents for a mesh network of
wirelessly linked communication nodes mounted on utility
has filed this motion to dismiss asserting that plaintiff has
not stated claims for any kind of infringement. For the
following reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss will be
denied, in part, and allowed, in part.
Factual and Procedural Background
is the assignee of United States Patent No. 7, 825, 793
(“'793 patent”), which was filed in May,
2007, and issued in November, 2010.
'793 patent, entitled “Remote Monitoring and
Control System, ” is an invention that allows people to
monitor and control from afar household and building
parameters such as home security settings, fire alarm
systems, air conditioning and water heating. The patent is
directed toward a communication system that relays
information between an end user device and a remote end user
via a node mounted on a utility pole, such as a telephone
April, 2015, plaintiff filed this action for patent
infringement. After this Court allowed several extensions of
time to file a responsive pleading, defendant moved to
dismiss the complaint in March, 2016. Plaintiff subsequently
filed an amended complaint alleging patent infringement under
theories of direct, contributory, induced and willful
infringement. Defendant's dispositive motion followed.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter” to state a claim for
relief that is actionable as a matter of law and
“plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if,
after accepting as true all non- conclusory factual
allegations, the court can draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A
court may not disregard properly pled factual allegations
even if actual proof of those facts is improbable.
Id. Rather, the relevant inquiry focuses on the
reasonableness of the inference of liability that the
plaintiff is asking the court to draw. Id. at 13.
rendering that determination, a court may not look beyond the
facts alleged in the complaint, documents incorporated by
reference therein and facts susceptible to judicial notice.
Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d
39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011).
alleges one count of “infringement” in its
complaint. Both plaintiff and defendant have, however,
submitted memoranda presenting arguments with respect to four
different kinds of infringement: direct, contributory,
induced and willful. Accordingly, the Court will construe the
amended complaint as alleging those four causes of action.
Legal standard for ...