Goodbye, Ruby Sands….

separator

Goodbye, Ruby Sands….


In a short but scathing order, Judge Gilstrap sent frequent patent lawsuit flier Ruby Sands, LLC packing, in granting a motion to dismiss Ruby’s amended complaint on grounds that it “plainly fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” The Court found that Ruby’s direct infringement pleadings “are constructed upon a fatally flawed foundation,” given the absence of any factual allegations that “even remotely suggest” that Defendant [a bank] makes, uses, offers to sell, or sell the mobile devices allegedly embodying the claim limitations. “Instead, the Court is left to wonder whether Ruby Sands performed a thorough pre-suit investigation, as required by the Federal Rules, to craft a plausible infringement theory before filing its complaint.”

Judge Gilstrap takes an even dimmer view of the indirect infringement allegations:

“The Court finds that the “inadvertent” inclusion of language presumably taken from a pleading directed to a different case, and completely unrelated to the patent-in-suit, is indicative of the kind of cut-and-paste pleading practices that Rule 12(b)(6) was meant to address. Repeatedly including phrases irreconcilable with the ’633 Patent not only renders Ruby Sands’ indirect infringement allegations implausible, but it also alerts the Court to the lack of care with which Ruby Sands drafted and filed its pleadings. That Ruby Sands amended its complaint two months after filing suit and still failed to correct this error only magnifies such carelessness. Unfortunately, this series of missteps amounts to more than mere inadvertence.”

The Order was filed in Ruby Sands LLC v. American National Bank of Texas, 15-cv-1955, and hopefully reflects an admirable effort to take a harder look at cut-and-paste complaints that regrettably seem to pop up on a not-infrequent basis in the patent litigation arena.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
separator

No comments so far!

separator

Leave a Comment