IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASTYLER DIVISIONSOVERAIN SOFTWARE LLC,Plaintiff,vs.J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., etal.,Defendants.§§§§§CASE NO. 6:09 CV 274§PATENT CASE§§§§ORDER
Avon Products, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of CivilProcedure 12(b)(6) and 8(a)(2) (Docket No. 120) is before the Court. Having considered the parties’written submissions, the Court
the motion.Avon moves to dismiss Soverain’s direct infringement claims under Rule 12(b)(6) arguingthat the patents-in-suit require the participation of multiple parties in order for direct infringementto occur. Avon contends that Soverain’s complaint does not allege that Avon’s websites do notdirect or control all of the potentially infringing elements under
BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.
, 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and
Muniauction, Inc. v. Thompson Corp.
, 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.Cir. 2008). As Avon contends that Soverain has not properly pled its direct infringement claims,Avon also argues that Soverain’s indirect infringement claims must fail for the same reasons.Finally, Avon contends that Soverain has not adequately pled its indirect infringement claims under Rule 8(a)(2) and
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) because Soverain’s complaintdoes not contain factual allegations of the knowledge required for inducement or contributory