Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Advanced Screenworks, LLC v. Mosher

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

January 8, 2020

ADVANCED SCREENWORKS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL C. MOSHER, individually and GOLD STAR VENTURES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant Paul C. Mosher's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #18) filed on December 9, 2019. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #22) on December 23, 2019. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I.

         A. Factual Background

         According to the Complaint, non-parties Brian Hughes and Brian Jones obtained U.S. Patent No. 8, 146, 647 (“‘647 Patent”) in April 2012 for a “Screen Clipping System and Clips Therefor.” (Doc. #1, pp. 2-3; Doc. #1-2, p. 15.) The ‘647 Patent was assigned to plaintiff Advanced Screenworks, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company that sells products relating to the “speedy and efficient screening of windows, doors, pool cages, and patios.” (Doc. #1, pp. 1-3; Doc. #1-3, p. 22.) Plaintiff utilizes the ‘647 Patent as part of its Lifestyle Screens product line, which is sold via dealers. (Doc. #1, p. 3.)

         As alleged in the Complaint, defendant Paul Mosher purchased a package of plaintiff's screen clips in September 2017 and thereafter he and defendant Gold Star Ventures LLC began infringing on the ‘647 Patent by manufacturing, selling, and/or importing a “Screening Buddy Dual Purpose Screen Retainer System” product over the internet. (Id. pp. 3-4; Doc. #1-5, p. 26.) In October 2019, plaintiff notified the defendants of the alleged infringement, but the defendants have continued to sell the product. (Doc. #1, p. 4; Doc. #1-6, p. 28.)

         B. Procedural Background

         On October 17, 2019, plaintiff filed its Complaint for Patent Infringement in this Court. (Doc. #1.) The complaint alleges the defendants

have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing infringement of and/or contributorily infringing the ‘647 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products and/or services that are covered by the claims of the ‘647 patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, the Screening Buddy.

(Id. p. 5.) Attached to the Complaint are, inter alia, screenshots of the Screening Buddy website and copies of the ‘647 Patent with diagrams and descriptions. (Doc. #1-1, pp. 9-13; Doc. #1-2, pp. 15-20.) As relief, plaintiff requests both monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. #1, p. 6.)

         On December 9, 2019, Mosher filed his Motion to Dismiss.[*](Doc. #18.) In the motion, Mosher argues the Complaint “fails to articulate any factual basis upon which an infringement claim can be made against the Screening Buddy, directly or indirectly, ” and therefore the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. p. 3.)

         II.

         A. Legal Standards

         In light of the abrogation of Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint alleging patent infringement must comply with Iqbal and Twombly to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Thermolife Int'l, LLC v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., 2016 WL 6678525, *2 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2016). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). To survive dismissal, the factual allegations must be “plausible” and “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555; see ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.