Resh, Inc v. Skimlite Manufacturing Inc

Background

Resh, Inc. brought this patent-infringement action concerning telescoping poles used to clean swimming pools. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,141,852, concerns a “Telepole Apparatus and Related Methods.” The complaint alleged that Robert Conrad, Inc., doing business as Skimlite Manufacturing, and James Conrad and Barrett Conrad used technology that infringed Resh’s patent.

After the court previously dismissed the original complaint in part, Resh filed a First Amended Complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(3), moved to strike allegations under Rule 12(f), and sought permission to file a later motion for attorneys’ fees.

Rule 8 dismissal

The court granted the motion to dismiss because the First Amended Complaint did not provide the required short and plain statement of the claims. The complaint contained 451 paragraphs and approximately 550 pages of exhibits. The court found that it combined factual allegations, legal arguments, case law, evidentiary material, screenshots, and confusing bullet-point lists, making it difficult to determine which facts supported which claims.

The court also found that the complaint continued to group the defendants together instead of specifying which allegations applied to which defendant. The court rejected Resh’s explanations that the length and detail were required by rules governing fraud allegations, the court’s earlier order, or the court’s filing requirements.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days after entry of the order and could not exceed 40 pages.

Contributory infringement

The defendants separately argued that Resh had not stated a plausible claim for contributory infringement based on replacement parts. The court agreed that Resh had not adequately alleged that the replacement parts were a “material part of the invention,” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). The court found that Resh’s statement that all contributory-infringement elements were present was conclusory and insufficient.

Requests for declaratory relief

The court dismissed the requests identified as Prayers F and G without leave to amend. It determined that Prayer F effectively sought a declaration that prior art did not invalidate Resh’s patent, which was the same relief the court had previously denied with prejudice. It determined that Prayer G, concerning whether U.S. Patent No. 11,333,182 covered certain poles, failed as a matter of law because the defendants had not asserted that patent in this case.

The court dismissed Prayer H with leave to amend. That request concerned whether the defendants’ ’182 patent covered two specific poles.

Other issues and disposition

Because the court dismissed the complaint under Rule 8, it did not evaluate the remaining allegations concerning direct or induced infringement by James Conrad and Barrett Conrad, Barrett Conrad’s venue challenge, or the defendants’ request to strike specified paragraphs. The request to strike was moot in light of the Rule 8 dismissal.

Judge Edward J. Davila denied the defendants’ request for permission to seek attorneys’ fees without prejudice to renewing that request later. The order therefore granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, dismissed Prayers F and G without leave to amend, and dismissed Prayer H with leave to amend.