![]() The Federal Circuit found that these allegations were neither general nor conclusory since they were supported by defendant’s own tests. This allegation explained why HCM disagreed with Philip Morris’s characterization in the MRTPA of the IQOS system as combustion-less. In its original complaint, HCM disagreed with Philip Morris’ MRTPA and specifically referred to defendant’s test result that specified “97%, not 100%, of the harmful chemicals associated with combustion are eliminated by the Accused Infringing Product,” and combustion markers were still present. ![]() ![]() Under the Eleventh Circuit law, a district court can consider exhibits attached to a complaint in ruling on a motion to dismiss and if the allegation of the complaint about a particular exhibit conflicts with the contents of the exhibit itself, the exhibit controls. But this does not mean that factual assertions made in an exhibit always control over contrary factual assertions on the same subject made in a complaint. Similarly, when a complaint contains specific, well-pleaded allegations that either do not appear in the attached exhibit or that contradict conclusory statements in the exhibit, courts in the Eleventh Circuit credit the allegations in the complaint. Regional circuit law applies when reviewing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). However, the district court determined that the HCM failed to plausibly allege, in either the original or the amended complaint, that the IQOS system initiates a combustion reaction and thus denied HCM’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.ĭid the district court err by dismissing the original complaint?ĭid the district court err by denying HCM’s motion for leave to amend the complaint? The district court agreed with Philip Morris and dismissed the complaint. HCM moved for leave to file an amended complaint, removing its reference to the MRTPA and attached an expert declaration opining that the IQOS system resulted in some burning and therefore the IQOS infringed the patent. HCM included an exhibit in its original complaint Philip Morris’ Modified Risk Tobacco Production Application (MRTPA). Philip Morris argued that the MRTPA showed that the IQOS did not initiate a combustion reaction and thus Philip Morris did not infringe. Philip Morris markets the IQOS system as a “heat-not-burn” system, claiming that the heat does not result in burning of the tobacco. HCM’s patent claims an electronic smoking device, that includes a limitation that recites a “combustible material reservoir” that “initiat a combustion reaction in the combustible material reservoir.” (“HCM”) sued Philip Morris for patent infringement accusing Philip’s “electronic nicotine delivery system” called the IQOS system. This case addresses pleading standards in view of contradicting factual assertions and a complaint’s disavowal of statements in an exhibit. Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |