AK Meeting IP, LLC v. Epic Games, Inc.

Background

AK Meeting IP, LLC alleged that video games developed by Epic Games, Inc., including Fortnite products, directly and indirectly infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,627,211. The parties agreed that Claim 1 was the relevant claim. That claim describes a network method involving a cursor associated with a client computer and a pointer whose display represents a change in the cursor’s position.

AK Meeting IP supported its infringement allegations mainly with screenshots and annotations in an exhibit to its amended complaint. It identified one Fortnite avatar as the cursor and another as the pointer. Epic moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended granting the motion. AK Meeting IP objected to that recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege the required cursor element. AK Meeting IP labeled one avatar as a cursor and stated that it responded to movement of a pointing device, but it did not provide supporting facts explaining why that avatar was the cursor associated with the client computer. The court found that these allegations merely repeated the patent’s claim language and were not enough to satisfy the pleading standard.

The court also held that AK Meeting IP did not plausibly allege the required pointer element. The screenshots showed two different avatars, but did not show movement or otherwise establish that the alleged pointer represented a change in the alleged cursor’s position. The court explained that the patent specification described the pointer as generally trailing the cursor, and that AK Meeting IP had not alleged facts showing that relationship.

Because the direct-infringement allegations were insufficient, the court also found that the indirect-infringement allegations were insufficient. The court rejected Epic’s separate argument that the complaint failed to identify the accused products with enough specificity, concluding that the complaint identified the Fortnite products more particularly than the complaint in the case Epic cited.

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in part but disagreed with its conclusion that the cursor element was plausibly pleaded. The court agreed with the recommendation concerning the pointer element and the failure to state an infringement claim. It also declined to adopt the recommendation that leave to amend be denied, explaining that AK Meeting IP had not yet had an opportunity to amend after receiving the court’s ruling on the pleading deficiencies.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was granted with leave to amend. AK Meeting IP was permitted to file an amended complaint within 21 days of the opinion. The court did not state that the claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.

Defendant’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11(b) was denied. The court ruled that the sanctions request was procedurally improper because it was included in Epic’s memorandum addressing the underlying motion rather than made separately. The court therefore did not decide the merits of the sanctions request.