United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
REIDINGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. 8].
April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff RavenSafe, LLC
(“Plaintiff”), filed this civil action against
the Defendants Nexus Technologies, Inc.
(“Nexus”), Edward Prather
(“Prather”), Daniel Conti (“Conti”),
and Charles Garden (“Garden” and collectively
“Defendants”) for patent infringement pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 271. [Doc. 1]. Specifically, the Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants are liable for direct and indirect
infringement on the 9, 865, 903 (“the ‘903
Patent”), and the 10, 084, 213 Patents (“the
‘213 Patent” and collectively “the
Patents”), in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
[Id. at ¶¶ 57-99, 100-31].
Defendants now seek the dismissal of this action pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
arguing that the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state
claims upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 8, 9]. The
Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the Defendants’
motion, [Doc. 12], to which those defendants have replied
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.” Id.
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) see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555 (A complaint containing mere “labels and
conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”).
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 ...