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

Background

AK Meeting IP, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 8,627,211, which describes displaying a computer user’s cursor together with a separate pointer. The pointer reflects the cursor’s movement after the related message travels from the user’s computer to a server and back, allowing the user to see network latency—the delay caused by that round trip.

Epic Games, Inc. develops Fortnite. AK Meeting alleged that Fortnite Battle Royale infringed Claim 1 of the patent through direct and indirect infringement. The parties agreed that the claim required, at minimum, a cursor, a pointer, and display of the pointer on the user’s computer.

AK Meeting’s Second Amended Complaint alleged that a Fortnite avatar initially functioned as the user’s cursor, but after the user moved a game controller, the same avatar became a pointer. Under that theory, the complaint alleged that the game displayed a cursor but no pointer in one screenshot, and later displayed a pointer but no cursor.

Motion to Dismiss

Epic moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. For a patent-infringement claim, the complaint must plausibly allege that the accused product practices each required limitation of at least one patent claim.

The court relied on the patent’s claim language and specification in evaluating the allegations. It determined that the patent describes the cursor and pointer as distinct items displayed simultaneously on the user’s computer. The patent’s purpose includes showing latency by allowing the pointer to trail the cursor after the server processes and returns the cursor message.

The court held that the Second Amended Complaint’s allegation that the cursor disappeared and became the pointer contradicted the patent. Because the entire direct-infringement theory depended on that allegation, the court found the theory implausible and inadequately pleaded. The court did not need to decide whether the complaint adequately alleged the other disputed elements of Claim 1.

Indirect Infringement

The court separately dismissed the indirect-infringement claim. It explained that indirect infringement requires an underlying direct infringement, and AK Meeting had not plausibly pleaded direct infringement.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because it found amendment would be futile. AK Meeting had already amended its complaint twice and had previously received an opportunity to amend after receiving the court’s ruling on the earlier complaint. The court also noted that the new infringement theory contradicted the theory advanced in the prior complaint.

Judge Woods granted Epic’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The order directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Epic’s favor and close the case.