Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID 260
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02830 JPM tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C.
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901) 522-9000
`
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`Daniel J. Weinberg (CA Bar No. 227159)
`James Lin (CA Bar No. 241472)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2013
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of 22 PageID 261
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Motion to Strike Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) ............................. 3
`
`The Twombly/Iqbal Standard Applies To Affirmative Defenses .......................... 6
`
`IV.
`
`GOOGLE’S CONCLUSORY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES DO NOT
`WITHSTAND A RULE 12(b)(6) CHALLENGE ............................................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`First Affirmative Defense ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Second Affirmative Defense .................................................................................. 9
`
`Third Affirmative Defense ................................................................................... 10
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense ................................................................................. 10
`
`Fifth Affirmative Defense .................................................................................... 10
`
`Sixth Affirmative Defense ................................................................................... 11
`
`Seventh Affirmative Defense ............................................................................... 14
`
`Eighth Affirmative Defense ................................................................................. 14
`
`V.
`
`B.E. WILL BE PREJUDICED IF GOOGLE’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`ARE NOT STRICKEN .................................................................................................... 15
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID 262
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC¸
`2011 WL 6934557 (D. Del. Dec. 30, 2011) ...............................................................................5
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Conley v. Gibson,
`355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) .........................................................................................................5, 11
`
`Damron v. ATM Central LLC,
`2010 WL 6512345 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 29, 2010) ........................................................................4
`
`Del-Nat Tire Corp. v. A To Z Tire & Battery, Inc.,
`2009 WL 4884435 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 8, 2009) .........................................................................4
`
`Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
`2008 WL 5232908 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2008) ......................................................................11, 12
`
`Elliot & Frantz, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.,
`457 F.3d 312, 321 (3d Cir. 2006)...............................................................................................7
`
`Groupon Inc. v. MobGob LLC,
`2011 WL 2111986 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011) .....................................................................12, 15
`
`HCRI TRS Acquirer, LLC v. Iwer,
`708 F. Supp. 2d 687 (N.D. Ohio 2010) ..................................................................................3, 5
`
`Holley Performance Prods., Inc. v. Quick Fuel Tech., Inc.,
`2011 WL 3159177 (W.D. Ky. July 26, 2011) ...........................................................................6
`
`Iconfind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`2011 WL 4505779 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011) ...........................................................................10
`
`In re Sterten,
`546 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2008).......................................................................................................7
`
`McLemore v. Regions Bank,
`2010 WL 1010092 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 18, 2010) .....................................................................11
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 4 of 22 PageID 263
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONT.)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Montgomery v. Wyeth,
`580 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................5, 6, 11
`
`PB Farradyne, Inc. v. Peterson,
`2006 WL 132182 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2006) ............................................................................12
`
`Qarbon.com v. eHelp,
`315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................................10, 12
`
`Regions Bank v. SoFHA Real Estate, Inc.,
`2010 WL 3341869 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010) ........................................................................3
`
`Renalds v. S.R.G. Restaurant Group, Chicago, LLC,
`119 F. Supp. 2d 800 (N.D. Ill. 2000) ........................................................................................9
`
`Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. O’Hara Corp.,
`2008 WL 2558015 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2008).........................................................................5
`
`Shinew v. Wszola,
`2009 WL 1076279 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2009) .........................................................................4
`
`Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc.,
`712 F. Supp. 2d 743 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ...................................................................................9, 14
`
`Sprint Comms. Co. v. Theglobe.com, Inc.,
`233 F.R.D. 615 (D. Kansas 2006) ............................................................................................12
`
`Surface Shields, Inc. v. Poly-Tak Protection Sys., Inc.,
`213 F.R.D. 307 (N.D. Ill. 2003) .................................................................................................3
`
`Tyco Fire Products LP v. Victaulic Co.,
`777 F. Supp. 2d 893 (D. Del. 2011) ...................................................................................6, 7, 8
`
`United States v. Quadrini,
`2007 WL 4303213 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2007) ..........................................................................4
`
`Westbrook v. Paragon Sys. Inc.,
`2007 WL 7715075 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 29, 2007) ...........................................................................5
`
`Williams v. Provident Inv. Counsel, Inc.,
`279 F. Supp. 2d 894, 906 (N.D. Ohio 2003) ..............................................................................3
`
`Zampieri v. Zampieri,
`2009 WL 3241741 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 30, 2009) ........................................................................4
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 5 of 22 PageID 264
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONT.)
`
`STATUTES
`
`Page(s)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 100 ..............................................................................................................................12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................................................................................2, 11, 12, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..............................................................................................................2, 11, 12, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..............................................................................................................2, 11, 12, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..............................................................................................................2, 11, 12, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) .....................................................................................................................2, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ..........................................................................................................................2, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ..........................................................................................................................2, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 288 ..........................................................................................................................2, 14
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 7(a) ..................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8 ......................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a) ..........................................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a)(2) .............................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(b) ..........................................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(c) ......................................................................................................5, 6, 7, 8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(b)(1)(A) .......................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 9 ......................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b) ................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(c) ................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) ...................................................................................................3, 8, 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(f) ...................................................................................................... passim
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 6 of 22 PageID 265
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONT.)
`
`RULES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(h)(2) ...........................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 19(b) ................................................................................................................8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller,
`Federal Practice and Procedure Civil § 1380 (3d ed. 2004) ....................................................3
`
`5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller,
`Federal Practice and Procedure Civil § 1381 (3d ed. 2004) ....................................................8
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 7 of 22 PageID 266
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) respectfully moves to strike defendant
`
`Google, Inc.’s (“Google”) Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(f). For the reasons stated below, the Court should grant B.E.’s motion.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND.
`
`B.E. is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Memphis, Tennessee. D.E. 1. B.E. owns all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`6,628,314 (“’314 patent”) and United States Patent No. 6,771,290 (“’290 patent”) (together the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”). The ’314 patent is entitled “Computer Interface Method And Apparatus With
`
`Targeted Advertising,” and claims inventions related to the display of targeted advertisements
`
`based on demographic information over a computer network. The ‘290 patent is entitled
`
`“Computer Interface Method And Apparatus With Portable Network Organization System And
`
`Targeted Advertising,” and claims inventions related to user interfaces for maintaining,
`
`organizing and communicating information accessible to a computer network such as the Internet
`
`and, in particular, to user interfaces that provide the user with availability to that information in a
`
`personalized manner.
`
`Google is a Delaware corporation. B.E. filed its Complaint in this matter on September
`
`21, 2012. Id. B.E. alleged that “Google has infringed the ’314 patent by using a method of
`
`providing demographically targeted advertising that directly infringes at least Claim 11 of the
`
`’314 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. at 3. B.E. also alleged that
`
`“Google has infringed at least Claim 2 of the ‘290 patent by using, selling, and offering to sell in
`
`the United States tablet computer products that directly infringe at least Claim 2 of the ‘290
`
`patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The accused products include Google
`
`Nexus products.” Id. Following a substantial extension of time designed to permit, among other
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 8 of 22 PageID 267
`
`
`things, Google to investigate the claims of the complaint (see D.E. 14 at 3), Google filed its
`
`Answer on December 31, 2012. D.E. 25.
`
`Google’s First Affirmative Defense states that “Google does not and has not infringed
`
`and is not liable for infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,628,314, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, willfully or
`
`otherwise.” D.E. 25 at 4. Google states the same in regards to the ‘290 patent. Id. Google’s
`
`Second Affirmative Defense provides that
`
`B.E. is not entitled to injunctive relief because Google has not infringed and is not
`infringing any valid claim of the asserted patents, and any purported injury to B.E.
`is not immediate or irreparable. To the extent B.E. proves that it would be
`entitled to any relief, it would have an adequate remedy at law. Moreover, the
`public interest and balance of hardships disfavor an injunction under the
`circumstances of this case.
`
`Id. Google’s Third Affirmative Defense state that “[t]o the extent B.E. purports to accuse any
`
`Google product, B.E.’s claims for contributory infringement are barred in whole or in part under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in view of the substantial non-infringing uses of such allegedly infringing
`
`product.” Id. Google’s Fourth Affirmative Defense simply concludes that “B.E.’s Complaint is
`
`barred, in whole or in part, by waiver, acquiescence, equitable estoppel, implied license, and/or
`
`the doctrine of unclean hands.” Id. Google’s Fifth Affirmative Defense merely states that
`
`“B.E.’s Complaint is barred by laches.” Id. Google’s Sixth Affirmative Defense states that
`
`The claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 are invalid for failure to satisfy one or
`more of the conditions of patentability, including without limitation those set forth
`in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112 because the alleged invention thereof
`lacks utility; is taught by, suggested by, and/or, obvious in view of, the prior art;
`and/or is not adequately supported by the written description of the patented
`invention.
`
`Id. at 5. Google recites an identical allegation for the ‘290 patent. Id. Google’s Seventh
`
`Affirmative Defense provides that “Plaintiff’s claims for damages, if any, against Google for
`
`alleged infringement of the Patents-in-Suit are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288.”
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 9 of 22 PageID 268
`
`
`Id. Google’s Eighth Affirmative Defense merely states that “B.E.’s Complaint fails to state a
`
`claim upon which relief can be granted against Google.” Id. Google’s Affirmative Defenses
`
`should be stricken.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW.
`
`A. Motion to Strike Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
`
`Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court may strike from a
`
`pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
`
`matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is the primary procedure for
`
`objecting to an insufficient defense.” Regions Bank v. SoFHA Real Estate, Inc., 2010 WL
`
`3341869, at *12 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010) (citing 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller,
`
`Federal Practice and Procedure Civil § 1380 (3d ed. 2004)). “[C]ourts have developed a three-
`
`part test to determine whether an affirmative defense survives a motion to strike.” HCRI TRS
`
`Acquirer, LLC v. Iwer, 708 F. Supp. 2d 687, 689 (N.D. Ohio 2010).
`
`First, the matter must be properly pleaded as an affirmative
`defense. Second, the affirmative defense must be adequately
`pleaded under the requirements on Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure 8 and 9. Finally, the affirmative defense must be able to
`withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.”
`
`Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Surface Shields, Inc. v. Poly-Tak
`
`Protection Sys., Inc., 213 F.R.D. 307, 308 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (applying the three-part test); Regions
`
`Bank, 2010 WL 3341869, at *12 (“It has been recognized . . . that if a defendant’s affirmative
`
`defense cannot withstand a Rule 12(b) challenge, the defense may be stricken as legally
`
`insufficient.”) (citing Williams v. Provident Inv. Counsel, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 894, 906 (N.D.
`
`Ohio 2003)).
`
`To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient
`
`factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 10 of 22 PageID 269
`
`
`v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
`
`(2007)). “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. at 555; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the
`
`claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). As the Supreme Court explained in Iqbal,
`
`“[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
`
`draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. at 678.
`
`There is a split of authority, however, whether the Twombly/Iqbal standard applies to
`
`affirmative defenses, and no Sixth Circuit or other circuit case law addresses the issue. Damron
`
`v. ATM Central LLC, 2010 WL 6512345, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 29, 2010) (“The Sixth Circuit
`
`has yet to decide whether the new pleading standards announced in Twombly and Iqbal apply to
`
`affirmative defenses and the district courts are divided on the issue.”); Del-Nat Tire Corp. v. A
`
`To Z Tire & Battery, Inc., 2009 WL 4884435, *2 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 8, 2009) (“Neither the Sixth
`
`Circuit Court of Appeals nor any of the other Courts of Appeals have addressed this issue, and
`
`the district courts have reached different conclusions.”). See also United States v. Quadrini,
`
`2007 WL 4303213, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2007) (“Like the plaintiff, a defendant must also
`
`plead sufficient facts to demonstrate a plausible affirmative defense, or one that has a
`
`‘reasonably founded hope’ of success.”); Zampieri v. Zampieri, 2009 WL 3241741, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tenn. Sept. 30, 2009) (applying Twombly standard to the pleading of affirmative defenses).
`
`District courts that have applied the Twombly/Iqbal standard to affirmative defenses
`
`recognize that the underlying rationale of the Supreme Court’s decisions extend to affirmative
`
`defenses. See, e.g., Shinew v. Wszola, 2009 WL 1076279, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2009)
`
`(“The Twombly decision also observed that discovery costs required to explore the factual basis
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 11 of 22 PageID 270
`
`
`for a pleaded claim or defense are a problem.”); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. O’Hara Corp., 2008
`
`WL 2558015, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2008) (explaining that applying the Twombly/Iqbal
`
`standard to affirmative defenses will help streamline litigation). On the other hand, courts
`
`concluding that the Twombly/Iqbal standard does not apply to affirmative defenses rely on
`
`differences in the language of Rule 8(a), Rule 8(b), and Rule 8(c). See, e.g., Westbrook v.
`
`Paragon Sys. Inc., 2007 WL 7715075, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 29, 2007) (“Neither [Rule 8(b) nor
`
`Rule 8(c)] expresses a requirement that the answer ‘show’ the defendant is entitled to prevail on
`
`its affirmative defense.”); Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC¸ 2011 WL
`
`6934557, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 30, 2011) (stating that “textual differences between Rule 8(a),
`
`which requires that a plaintiff asserting a claim show entitlement to relief, and Rule 8(c), which
`
`requires only that the defendant state any defenses”) (emphasis in original); but see HCRI TRS
`
`Acquirer, 708 F. Supp. 2d at 690-91 (“While the language in Civil Rule 8(a) differs from the
`
`language in Civil Rule 8(b) & (c), this difference is minimal and simply reflects the fact that an
`
`answer is a response to a complaint.”).
`
`One post-Twombly/Iqbal Sixth Circuit decision, that did not address Twombly or Iqbal,
`
`held that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a heightened pleading standard
`
`for a statute of repose defense.” Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455, 468 (6th Cir. 2009)
`
`(addressing whether the statute of repose defense codified in the Tennessee Products Liability
`
`Act had been waived). The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent that a plaintiff must “give
`
`the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
`
`Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455, 468 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
`
`41, 47 (1957)). A few district courts in this circuit have likened the Sixth Circuit’s comments on
`
`the pleading requirements of the statute of repose—not an affirmative defense—to affirmative
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 12 of 22 PageID 271
`
`
`defenses. See, e.g., Holley Performance Prods., Inc. v. Quick Fuel Tech., Inc., 2011 WL
`
`3159177, at *2 (W.D. Ky. July 26, 2011) (“Given the Sixth Circuit’s ‘fair notice’ standard for
`
`pleading affirmative defenses, its ruling in Montgomery, and the total absence of appellate
`
`precedent on this issue the Court declines to adopt the heightened pleading standard of Twombly
`
`and Iqbal for the pleading of defenses.”). The Montgomery case does not address the holdings of
`
`Twombly or Iqbal, neither of which articulates a “heightened pleading standard,” but B.E.
`
`submits that the Twombly/Iqbal standard applies equally to defenses as it does to claims for
`
`relief.
`
`B.
`
`The Twombly/Iqbal Standard Applies To Affirmative Defenses.
`
`The Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards should apply to affirmative defenses because the
`
`rationale upon which courts rely to conclude otherwise represents a misunderstanding of Rule
`
`8(c). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim
`
`showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;” Rule 8(b) requires a pleader to “state in short and
`
`plain terms its defenses;” and Rule 8(c) requires a pleader to “affirmatively state any avoidance
`
`or affirmative defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (b), & (c). In Tyco Fire Products LP v. Victaulic
`
`Co., 777 F. Supp. 2d 893 (D. Del. 2011), the court relied on these language differences to
`
`support a holding that the Twombly/Iqbal standard does not apply to affirmative defenses. 777 F.
`
`Supp. 2d at 900. In particular, the court noted that Rule 8(a) requires the pleading of a “short and
`
`plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” whereas Rule 8(c)
`
`requires a pleader to “state” affirmative defenses without mentioning any required “showing.”
`
`Id. at 897. Rule 8(c), however, does not merely say that a defendant must “state” its defense, it
`
`provides that “a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and lists
`
`examples of matters that must be pleaded affirmatively. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). The point of Rule
`
`8(c) is that matters of avoidance or affirmative defense must be affirmatively stated, on pain of
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 13 of 22 PageID 272
`
`
`waiver. The drafters of the rule did not intend to specify the form of the required affirmative
`
`statement, and the essence of Rule 8(c) is missed by a reading separating “affirmatively” from
`
`“state.” See In re Sterten, 546 F.3d 278, 283 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Rule 8(c) governs affirmative
`
`defenses, which are generally waived if not specifically raised by responsive pleading or by
`
`appropriate motion.”) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Elliot & Frantz, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand
`
`Co., 457 F.3d 312, 321 (3d Cir. 2006)). Rule 8(c) does not concern the sufficiency of the
`
`allegations of an affirmative defense.
`
`It is Rule 8(b), not Rule 8(c), which provides the pleading requirement for defenses
`
`analogous to the requirement of Rule 8(a) applicable to claims for relief. Like Rule 8(a), Rule
`
`8(b) requires a “short and plain” statement. The defendant must “state in short and plain terms
`
`its defenses to each claim asserted against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A). Given its purpose,
`
`Rule 8(b) could not be expected to require that the defendant’s short and plain statement of its
`
`defense show that the defendant “is entitled to relief.” That is not the point of a defense. A
`
`defense is supposed to show that the plaintiff is “not entitled to relief,” and there is no reason to
`
`expect the rule to specify the obvious fact that this is what the defense should show, and no
`
`distinction to be drawn from the absence of a reference to the required “showing.” Nothing
`
`would be added if Rule 8(b)(1)(A) said that must “state in short and plaint terms its defenses to
`
`each claim asserted against it showing that the opposing party is not entitled to relief” or “state in
`
`short and plaint terms its defenses showing that the opposing party is not entitled to relief to each
`
`claim asserted against it.”
`
`Rule 12(f) itself makes clear that the Tyco court was wrong to find in Rule 8(c) a basis for
`
`excluding a content requirement on the “statement” of an affirmative defense. Rule 12(f)
`
`provides, among other things, that an “insufficient defense” may be stricken. There is no reason
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 14 of 22 PageID 273
`
`
`to doubt that the “insufficiency” concept embodied in Rule 12(f) includes that “insufficient”
`
`factual statement of a defense, as there is little else it could include, and many cases support the
`
`conclusion that defenses are to be tested for their factual sufficiency. Indeed, Rule 12(f) was
`
`added in 1948 to provide a specific basis for a pleading attack on the sufficiency of an
`
`affirmative defense after debate in the courts as to the proper basis on which such challenges
`
`could be made. See Advisory Committee Note on 1948 Amendment of Rule 12; 5C Charles
`
`Alan Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil § 1381 (3d ed. 2004).1
`
`The Tyco court’s error is also made clear by Rule 12(h)(2), which provides that “[f]ailure
`
`to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, to join a person required by Rule 19(b), or to
`
`state a legal defense to a claim may be raised” in any Rule 7(a) pleading, in a Rule 12(c) motion,
`
`or at trial. If “state” in Rule 8(c) had the meaning suggested in Tyco (to “state” in any manner,
`
`regardless of form, and without regard to whether an entitlement to relief is shown), Rule
`
`12(h)(2) would make no sense. A “failure to state a defense” would be an omission to assert the
`
`defense, something that would never be challenged by the opposing party in a pleading, a
`
`motion, or at trial, as there would be nothing to challenge. A plaintiff would have no need to
`
`challenge a defense that was not “stated” at any of these stages of a case.
`
`
`1 The Wright and Miller treatise explains the situation as follows: “As indicated in the Advisory
`Committee’s Note accompanying the 1948 amendment, prior to the modification of Rule 12(f) in
`that year the method of challenging the sufficiency of a defense was a matter that troubled some
`federal courts, although an attack was permitted ‘in one way or another.’ Some pre-amendment
`decisions insisted that the motion to strike was not an appropriate remedy to test a pleading’s
`sufficiency; other courts considered that the proper vehicle for dealing with an insufficient
`defense was either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment; yet another group of
`cases prior to the amendment treated a Rule 12(f) motion as if it were a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
`However, a number of courts did accept the proposition that there should be some mechanism for
`disposing of a wholly insufficient defense at the pleading stage and concluded that a motion to
`strike was an acceptable remedy. This last approach obviously was the one formally adopted by
`the rulemakers in 1948.” Id. (footnotes omitted).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 36-1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 15 of 22 PageID 274
`
`
`IV. GOOGLE’S CONCLUSORY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES DO NOT
`WITHSTAND A RULE 12(b)(6) CHALLENGE.
`
`A.
`
`First Affirmative Defense.
`
`Google’s First Affirmative Defense is insufficient and does not even constitute an
`
`affirmative defense. Google merely states it “does not and has not infringed and is not liable for
`
`infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, willfully or otherwise.” D.E. 25 at 4.
`
`Google states verbatim the same boilerplate affirmative defense for the ’290 patent. Id. These
`
`generic denials fail under any standard because they do not provide any facts sufficient to show
`
`that they are even “plausible,” much less possible, that Google does not infringe. Legal
`
`conclusions and conclusory statements, such as this, are entitled to no presumption of truth.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678-79. Moreover, Google’s contentions that it does not infringe the ’314 patent
`
`and ’290 patent are not an avoidance or affirmative defense. Google denied that it infringed
`
`B.E.’s patents. See D.E. 25 at ¶¶ 14 and 17. There is no need for a redundant affirmative
`
`defense. See Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., 712 F. Supp. 2d 743, 755-56 (N.D. Ill. 2010)
`
`(explaining when denials in answers have already the “defense” at issue, defendants need not and
`
`cannot assert the same denial as an affirmative defense) (citing Renalds v. S.R.G. Restaurant
`
`Group, Chicago, LLC, 119 F. Supp. 2d 800, 804 (N.D. Ill. 2000)).
`
`B.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense.
`
`Google’s Second Affirmative Defense, a mere reference to the propriety of injunctive
`
`relief, is not a proper affirmative defense but rather a denial that B.E. is entitled to relief it seeks.
`
`Google denied that B.E. is entitled to injuncti