United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DANIEL CONTI and BENJAMIN BOMER, Plaintiffs,
UNLIMITED POWER LTD. and CHRISTOPHER J. PETRELLA, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Reidinger United States District judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Unlimited
Power Ltd. and Christopher J. Petrella's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 11].
January 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs Nexus Technologies, Inc.
(“Nexus”), Daniel Conti (“Conti”),
and Benjamin Bomer (“Bomer”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed this civil action against the
Defendants Unlimited Power LTD. (“Unlimited
Power”) and Christopher J. Petrella
“Defendants”) to correct inventorship of U.S.
Patent Nos. 9, 865, 903 (“the ‘903
Patent”), 10, 084, 213 (“the ‘213
Patent”), D807, 806 (“the ‘806
Patent”) and D815, 030 (“the ‘030
Patent”) (collectively “the Patents”) under
the patent laws of the United States. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256 that Plaintiff
Conti should be added as an inventor or co-inventor of the
‘903 and ‘213 Patents (Counts I and II);
Plaintiff Bomer should be added as an inventor or co-inventor
of the ‘816 and ‘030 Patents (Counts III and IV);
and Defendant Petrella should be removed as an inventor of
the Patents (Counts I-IV). The Plaintiffs also allege that
the Defendants are liable for conversion (Count VI),
violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, N.C. G.S. § 75-1.1 et seq., for
utilizing unfair methods of competition and unfair and
deceptive trade practices (Count V), and unjust enrichment
Defendants now seek the dismissal of this action pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
arguing that the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state
claims upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 11]. The
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the Defendants'
motion [Doc. 12], to which the Defendants have replied [Doc.
been fully briefed, this matter is ripe for disposition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To
be “plausible on its face, ” a plaintiff must
demonstrate more than “a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678.
reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept the
truthfulness of all factual allegations but is not required
to assume the truth of “bare legal conclusions.”
Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir.
2011). “The mere recital of elements of a cause of
action, supported only by conclusory statements, is not
sufficient to survive a motion made pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435,
439 (4th Cir. 2012).
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is
“a context-specific task, ” Francis v.
Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009), which
requires the Court to assess whether the factual allegations
of the complaint are sufficient “to raise the right to
relief above the speculative level, ” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555. As the Fourth Circuit has explained:
To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff need not forecast
evidence sufficient to prove the elements of the claim.
However, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to
establish those elements. Thus, while a plaintiff does not
need to demonstrate in a complaint that the right to relief
is probable, the complaint must advance the plaintiff's
claim across the line from conceivable to plausible.
Walters, 684 F.3d at 439 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
the well-pleaded factual allegations of the Complaint as
true, the following is a ...