Endobotics, LLC v. FUJIFILM Healthcare Americas Corporation

Background

Endobotics alleged that FUJIFILM’s Tracmotion products infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,147,650 and 7,364,582. It asserted direct, indirect, induced, and willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and sought damages for alleged lost profits and lost opportunities.

The operative pleading was Endobotics’s First Amended Complaint. For purposes of the motion, the court treated well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewed reasonable inferences in Endobotics’s favor.

Motion to Dismiss

FUJIFILM moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule permits dismissal when a complaint does not contain enough factual detail to make the claimed entitlement to relief plausible. The court explained that a plaintiff cannot simply repeat the elements of patent infringement or state “upon information and belief” that an accused product contains the claimed features without explaining why the product plausibly infringes.

Direct Infringement

The court held that Endobotics had not plausibly pleaded direct infringement. Endobotics alleged, on information and belief, that the Tracmotion products contained a “proximal bendable member,” and asserted that this meant the products infringed the patents. The court found those allegations conclusory and insufficient to explain how the products infringed the patent claims. It dismissed the direct-infringement claim without prejudice.

Indirect, Induced, and Willful Infringement

The court stated that claims for indirect, induced, and willful infringement require an adequately pleaded claim of direct infringement. Because Endobotics had not adequately pleaded direct infringement, the court dismissed the indirect, induced, and willful infringement claims without prejudice.

Damages

The court also dismissed Endobotics’s damages claim without prejudice. It explained that, because Endobotics had not plausibly alleged infringement, it had not plausibly alleged an entitlement to damages. The court noted that an amended complaint might address both infringement and damages.

Disposition

The court granted FUJIFILM’s motion to dismiss Endobotics’s First Amended Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. Endobotics was granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by June 30, 2025. The Second Amended Complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the First Amended Complaint. FUJIFILM was directed to answer or otherwise respond by July 29, 2025, if Endobotics filed an amended complaint. If Endobotics did not file by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed the clerk to terminate the motion identified in the conclusion as ECF No. 18.