2filed April 6, 2012; and3.
Qualcomm Incorporated’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Sterne,
& Fox’s Motion to Dismiss, Strike or Abate Portions of Qualcomm’s Counterclaim and Demand for Jury Trial (
Doc. No. 104), filed April 23, 2012.Upon consideration, the Court hereby grants the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff ParkerVision filed a complaint against Defendant Qualcomm, allegingpatent infringement. (Doc. No. 88.) In response, Qualcomm answered the complaintand filed a counterclaim against ParkerVision, alleging,
, that ParkerVisionaided Counterclaim-Defendant Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (SKGF) in breachingits duties to Qualcomm. (Doc. No. 91.) To the ParkerVision counterclaim, Qualcomm joined breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract counterclaims against SKGF. (
at 50, 63, Counts 9, 11.) SKGF moves to dismiss the counterclaims against it. (Doc.No. 99.)
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
is a purely procedural question not pertaining to patent law.”
McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
, 501 F.3d 1354, 1355
56 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
provides that a claimant must plead “a short and plain statement of the claim.” On amotion to dismiss, the Court limits its consideration to “the well
La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc.
, 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004). The
factual allegations in the complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on itsface.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this plausibility
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 197 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID 7609