M2M Solutions LLC v. Telit Communications PLC, et al., C.A. No. 14-1103 - RGA, August 5, 2015

Andrews, J. UK parent defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted.

The court declines to consider extrinsic evidence in the context of this motion to dismiss.  However, the complaint is deficient in that the decision to lump two defendants together in addressing the direct infringement claim cannot pass muster under Form 18, which requires the identification of the accused product, process or method for each defendant.   The complaint fails to identify which defendant or defendants are responsible for which infringing products, methods or process. The complaint further does not allege facts demonstrating the parent’s effective control over the subsidiary.  Plaintiff further insufficiently pleads the requisite knowledge element of induced infringement. The contributory infringement claim is also deficient.