Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 25 PageID 477
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
`AND MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 2 of 25 PageID 478
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 1
`
`B.E.’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`People Media’s Counterclaims Satisfy The Notice Pleading Requirements
`Of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ..................................................................................................2
`
`People Media’s Counterclaims Are Adequately Pled Under The Federal
`Rules Of Civil Procedure .........................................................................................5
`
`III.
`
`B.E.’S MOTION TO STRIKE SHOULD BE DENIED .................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Motions To Strike Are Disfavored ..........................................................................6
`
`B.E.’s Claim That The Iqbal/Twombly Standard Applies To Affirmative
`Defenses Should Be Rejected ..................................................................................7
`
`C.
`
`Each of People Media’s Affirmative Defenses Has Been Adequately Pled ..........10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Non-Infringement ..................................................................................... 10
`
`Invalidity ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Prosecution History Estoppel .................................................................... 12
`
`No Injunctive Relief .................................................................................. 13
`
`Patent Misuse ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Failure To State A Claim .......................................................................... 14
`
`Estoppel, Waiver, Implied License, Express License, Laches ................. 15
`
`Good Faith, Limitation on Patent Damages, Patent Marking,
`Invalid Claim ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Unclean Hands, Estoppel, Acquiescence, and/or Other Equitable
`Defenses .................................................................................................... 17
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 3 of 25 PageID 479
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................................... passim
`Avocent Redmond Corp. v. U.S.,
`No. 08-69C, 2009 WL 367499 (Ct. Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2009) ...................................................... 10
`Barry Fiala, Inc. v. Arthur Blank & Co., Inc.,
`No. 2:02-cv-2282, 2003 WL 22309442 (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 19, 2003) ....................................... 6
`Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC,
`No. 10-1045 RMB-JS, 2011 WL 6934557 (D. Del. Dec. 30, 2011) .......................................... 9
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................... passim
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States,
`201 F.2d 819 (6th Cir.1953) ................................................................................................... 6, 7
`Conley v. Gibson,
`355 U.S. 41 (1957) ...................................................................................................................... 2
`Damron v. ATM Central LLC,
`No. 1:10-cv-01210-JDB-egb, 2010 WL 6512345 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 29, 2010) ..................... 6, 9
`Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc.,
`No. 308-CV-00116-LRH-RAM, 2008 WL 5232908 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2008) .................. 12, 17
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................................................. 13
`Elan Pharma Intern. Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`No. 09-1008 (JAG), 2010 WL 1372316 (D.N.J. March 31, 2010) ................................... 2, 4, 11
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`493 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 12
`First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am. v. Camps Servs.,
`No. 08-cv-12805, 2009 WL 22861 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2009) ................................................... 8
`Gen-Probe Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Co.,
`No. 09-cv-2319-BEN, 2010 WL 4442731 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010) ....................................... 14
`Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc. v. C.W. Zumbiel Co.,
`No. 1:10-cv-3008, 2011 WL 5829674 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2011) .............................................. 12
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 132 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 5
`Keene Corp. v. United States,
`508 U.S. 200 (1993) .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 4 of 25 PageID 480
`
`
`Kilgore-Wilson v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
`No. 2:11-cv-02601-JTF, 2012 WL 4062663 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 14, 2012) ....................... passim
`K-Tech Telecomm, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 5
`Mark IV Industries Corp. v. Transcore, L.P.,
` No. 09-418, 2009 WL 4828661 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2009) .......................................................... 15
`McLemore v. Regions Bank,
`Nos. 3:08–cv–0021 & 3:08–cv–1003, 2010 WL 1010092 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 18, 2010) ........... 8
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 5
`Microsoft Corp. v. Phoenix Sol’ns, Inc.,
`741 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................... 4
`Montgomery v. Wyeth,
`580 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 8, 10
`MTA Metro-North R.R. v. Buchanan Marine, L.P.,
`No. 05 Civ. 881, 2006 WL 3655244, (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2006) ................................................ 15
`Paducah River Painting, Inc. v. McNational, Inc.,
`No. 5:11-cv-00135-R, 2011 WL 5525938 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 14, 2011) ..................................... 12
`Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Norma Espinosa 2007-1 Ins. Trust,
`No. 09–300–LPS, 2011 WL 710970 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2011) .................................................... 9
`Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`726 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Ill. 2010) .................................................................................... 4, 12
`Rosada v. John Wieland Homes & Neighborhoods, Inc.,
`No. 3:09–cv–653–J–20MCR, 2010 WL 1249841 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2010) ......................... 15
`Schinzing v. Mid-States Stainless, Inc.,
`415 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................... 2
`Senju Pharms. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`Civ. No. 12-159-SLR, 2013 WL 444928 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2013) ............................................... 8
`Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc.,
`630 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D. Del. 2009) .......................................................................................... 16
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Aruba Networks, Inc.,
`609 F. Supp. 2d 353 (D. Del. 2009) ...................................................................................... 4, 16
`Teirstein v. AGA Medical Corp.,
`No. 6:08cv14, 2009 WL 704138 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2009) .............................................. 12, 13
`Trading Tech. Int'l., Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-715, 2011 WL 3946581 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2011) .................................................... 11
`Under Sea Indust., Inc. v. Dacor Corp.,
`833 F.2d 1551 (Fed.Cir.1987) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 5 of 25 PageID 481
`
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research,
`395 U.S. 100 (1969) .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................................................................................................... 3, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ......................................................................................................................... 3, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................................... 3, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 105 ............................................................................................................................. 12
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................................... 3, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ............................................................................................................................. 16
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ............................................................................................................................. 16
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ............................................................................................................................. 16
`35 U.S.C. § 288 ............................................................................................................................. 16
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ........................................................................................................................ 2, 11
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ............................................................................................................. 2, 3, 4, 7
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 2
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b) ................................................................................................................... 7, 15
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)................................................................................................................... 11
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(a) ................................................................................................................ 7
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) ....................................................................................................... 7, 14, 15, 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .......................................................................................................................... 12
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................................... 1
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ................................................................................................................ 1, 6, 7
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 ............................................................................................................................ 5
`Fed. R. Civ. P., Form 18 ............................................................................................................. 1, 5
`Fed. R. Civ. P., Form 30 ....................................................................................................... 1, 5, 15
`
`STATE RULES
`Local Patent Rule 3.1 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`Local Patent Rule 3.3 ...................................................................................................................... 4
`Local Patent Rule 3.5 ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 6 of 25 PageID 482
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
`Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380 (2d ed.1990) .............................................................. 6, 7
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 7 of 25 PageID 483
`
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) accuses People Media, Inc. (“People Media”) of
`
`infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (“the ‘314 Patent”) by allegedly “providing
`
`demographically targeted advertising.” See Compl. ¶ 11, D.E. 1. B.E.’s Complaint fails to
`
`provide any details as to why or how People Media’s products infringe the ‘314 Patent. People
`
`Media filed its Answer, asserting multiple affirmative defenses, and a Counterclaim for
`
`Declaratory Judgment on December 31, 2012. See Answer, D.E. 21. On January 25, 2013, B.E.
`
`filed a Motion to Dismiss Under to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Motion to
`
`Strike Under to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and a supporting memorandum. See D.E.
`
`33 (Motion); D.E. 33-1 (Memorandum). On January 7, 2013, B.E. served its Initial Infringement
`
`Contentions pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3.1. People Media served its Initial Non-infringement
`
`Contentions on February 7, 2013.
`
`II.
`
`B.E.’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`People Media’s counterclaims satisfy and are consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, Forms 18 and 30, and precedent. Indeed, People Media’s counterclaims contain the
`
`same, if not more, detail than B.E.’s allegations of infringement in its Complaint. Neither the
`
`Federal Rules, nor the pleading standard articulated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`
`544 (2007) or Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) support B.E.’s suggestion of a heightened
`
`pleading standard.1
`
`
`1 The infringement allegations in B.E.’s Complaint are no more specific than the non-
`infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability Counts of People Media’s Counterclaims. B.E.
`alleges in conclusory fashion that “People Media 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.” D.E. 1 at
`Compl. ¶ 11. Nowhere does B.E. specify the specific product or why People Media’s
`product actually infringes Claim 11.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 8 of 25 PageID 484
`
`
`A.
`
`People Media’s Counterclaims Satisfy The Notice Pleading Requirements Of
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
`
`Pleadings comply with Rule 8(a) by providing “a short and plain statement of the claim
`
`showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” (Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)), such that the defendant is
`
`given “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Determining compliance with
`
`this standard is not “a ‘fact-based’ question of law,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 674, and “does not require
`
`‘detailed factual allegations,’” but a claim for relief must be “plausible on its face.” Id. at 678
`
`(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim
`
`for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
`
`judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. People Media’s counterclaims plainly
`
`adhere to that standard.
`
`People Media’s First Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
`
`alleges that its products do not infringe any valid and/or enforceable claim of the ‘314 Patent.
`
`B.E. claims that this counterclaim “falls well short of the requirements articulated in Twombly
`
`and Iqbal.” D.E. 33-1 at 13. However, B.E. brought the instant action for infringement against
`
`People Media and B.E. has the burden of proof as to infringement of the ‘314 Patent. See
`
`Schinzing v. Mid-States Stainless, Inc., 415 F.3d 807, 814 (8th Cir. 2005) (where defendant
`
`counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, patent holder “was obligated to
`
`counterclaim for infringement and had the burden to show infringement”); Under Sea Indust.,
`
`Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“The burden is always on the
`
`patentee to show infringement”). Therefore, B.E. is on notice as to People Media’s non-
`
`infringement counterclaims. See Elan Pharma Intern. Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 09-1008 (JAG),
`
`2010 WL 1372316, at *4 (D.N.J. March 31, 2010) (concluding that non-infringement
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 9 of 25 PageID 485
`
`
`counterclaims merely averring that the defendant’s product did not infringe the listed patents
`
`satisfied Rule 8(a) and put the plaintiff on full notice of the defendant’s claims of non-
`
`infringement). Moreover, it would be nonsensical to suggest that Plaintiff’s Complaint, which
`
`contains fewer factual allegations than Defendant’s non-infringement counterclaim, is somehow
`
`satisfactory while a mirror allegation of non-infringement is not. Such a result is plainly not
`
`supported by Iqbal or Twombly.
`
`People Media’s Second Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity alleges
`
`that the ‘314 Patent is invalid. B.E. contends that People Media’s second counterclaim simply
`
`reads “[t]he claims of the ‘314 Patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35, United States Code, including §§ 101, 102, 103
`
`and/or 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto.” D.E. at 33-1 at 10.
`
`However, B.E. fails to note that People Media’s counterclaim includes the specific allegations
`
`that “[t]he ‘392 Patent (in view of the ‘061 Patent) renders obvious at least claim 11 of the ‘314
`
`Patent” (D.E. 21 at Counterclaim ¶ 19) and that “[t]he ‘418 Patent anticipates and/or renders
`
`obvious at least claim 11 of the ‘314 Patent” (D.E. 21 at Counterclaim ¶ 20). In other words, the
`
`counterclaim points to specific prior art as a basis for invalidity. These allegations are sufficient
`
`to put B.E. on notice of People Media’s claim and the grounds upon which this claim rests.
`
`Similarly, People Media’s Third Counterclaim alleges that the ‘314 Patent is
`
`unenforceable due to laches. As noted above, B.E. brought the instant action for infringement
`
`against People Media’s products and services, which have been on the market for many years.
`
`B.E. had an obligation under Rule 11 to verify its infringement claims and it can be reasonably
`
`inferred that B.E. knew of its rights against People Media and intended to relinquish those rights,
`
`by failing to assert its patent for nearly a decade, thereby facially demonstrating laches. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 10 of 25 PageID 486
`
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Aruba Networks, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 353, 357 (D. Del. 2009) (“[g]iven
`
`that equitable estoppel ‘is not limited to a particular factual situation not subject to resolution by
`
`simple or hard and fast rules,’ and that the factual record before the Court is sparse,” equitable
`
`estoppel defense not deemed insufficient).
`
`Moreover, dismissal of People Media’s counterclaims would undermine the Local Patent
`
`Rules, which require more detailed disclosures at a later stage. Pursuant to the Local Patent
`
`Rules, both parties are required to disclose certain information regarding their theories of the
`
`case. Indeed, Local Patent Rule 3.3 required People Media to serve its Initial Non-Infringement
`
`Contentions on February 7, 2013, which it did, after B.E. served its Initial Infringement
`
`Contentions. Similarly, Local Patent Rule 3.5 requires People Media to serve its Invalidity and
`
`Unenforceability Contentions. Under the Local Patent Rules these filings will contain any
`
`additional basis for People Media’s counterclaims.
`
`Multiple district courts have concluded that local patent rules requiring similar
`
`disclosures advise against dismissal of counterclaims for alleged noncompliance with Rule 8(a).
`
`See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Phoenix Sol’ns, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
`
`(“[B]ecause the Court requires that invalidity contentions be served promptly after a
`
`counterclaim of invalidity is advanced, invalidity claims are not subject to the heightened
`
`pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal.”); Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 921, 938
`
`(N.D. Ill. 2010) (“In analogous cases, other district courts have concluded that local patent rules
`
`requiring similar disclosures militate against dismissal of counterclaims for failure to meet the
`
`pleading requirements of Rule 8(a).”). The same consideration applies to People Media’s
`
`affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Elan Pharma, 2010 WL 1372316, at *5 (“This motion suggests a
`
`factual disclosure that the Federal Circuit does not require, and a disclosure that, if required here,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 11 of 25 PageID 487
`
`
`would make [the Local Patent Rules] superfluous. This Court cannot rule in a manner that
`
`undermines logic, the Federal Rules, and the District of New Jersey Local Patent Rules.”).
`
`B.
`
`People Media’s Counterclaims Are Adequately Pled Under The Federal
`Rules Of Civil Procedure
`
`People Media’s counterclaims for declaratory judgment are consistent with Forms 18 and
`
`30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 states that the
`
`forms in the appendix to the Federal Rules “suffice under these rules and illustrate the simplicity
`
`and brevity that these rules contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84. Form 30 provides that
`
`counterclaims should be “[s]et forth . . . in the same way a claim is pleaded in a complaint.” Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. app. Form 30. Form 18 states that a complaint for patent infringement should include:
`
`(1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff
`owns the patent; (3) a statement that the defendant has been
`infringing the patent “by making, selling, and using [the device]
`embodying the patent”; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has given
`the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for
`injunction and damages.
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (quoting McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007));
`
`see also K-Tech Telecomm, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`People Media’s First Counterclaim provides an allegation of jurisdiction, (D.E. 21 at
`
`Counterclaim ¶¶ 3-5); (b) a statement that an actual controversy exists as to whether the patents
`
`are infringed, (D.E. 21 at Counterclaim ¶¶ 6-8); (c) an allegation that People Media has not and
`
`does not infringe the patent-in-suit literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (D.E. 21 at
`
`Counterclaim ¶ 13); and (d) a demand for relief in the form of a declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement, (D.E. 21 at Counterclaim ¶ 14-15). People Media’s Second (invalidity) and Third
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 12 of 25 PageID 488
`
`
`(laches) Counterclaims contain similar allegations. See D.E. 21 at Counterclaim at ¶¶ 16-22
`
`(Second Counterclaim); D.E. 21 at Counterclaim at ¶¶ 23- 26 (Third Counterclaim).2
`
`III. B.E.’S MOTION TO STRIKE SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`A. Motions To Strike Are Disfavored
`
`The purpose of a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is to
`
`eliminate “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter in any pleading, and [it] is
`
`the primary procedure for objecting to an insufficient defense.” Barry Fiala, Inc. v. Arthur
`
`Blank & Co., Inc., No. 2:02-cv-2282, 2003 WL 22309442 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2003) (citing 5A
`
`Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380 (2d ed.1990)).
`
`A motion to strike must be denied unless B.E. has “shown that the allegations being challenged
`
`are so unrelated to plaintiff’s claims as to be unworthy of any consideration as a defense and that
`
`their pleading throughout the proceeding will be prejudicial to the moving party.” Wright &
`
`Miller, § 1380, at 650; see also Kilgore-Wilson v. Home Depot U.S.A., No. 2:11-cv-02601-JTF,
`
`2012 WL 4062663, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 14, 2012) (“It is ‘well established that the action of
`
`striking a pleading should be sparingly used by the courts.’”) (citing Brown & Williamson
`
`Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953)) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Additionally, this Court has specifically admonished plaintiffs for moving to strike affirmative
`
`defenses before any discovery has occurred. See Damron v. ATM Central LLC, No. 1:10-cv-
`
`01210-JDB-egb, 2010 WL 6512345, *2-3 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 29, 2010) (denying motion to strike
`
`
`2 Even after Twombly, the Forms continue to be the standard to which direct infringement is
`measured. See In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1334 (“[T]o the extent that the parties argue
`that Twombly and its progeny conflict with the Forms and create differing pleading
`requirements, the Forms control.”) (citing McZeal, 501 F.3d at 1360); see also Twombly, 550
`U.S. at 569 n.14 (acknowledging that altering the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be
`accomplished by judicial interpretation).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 13 of 25 PageID 489
`
`
`and noting it is “particularly inappropriate at this early stage, before any discovery has
`
`occurred”).
`
`Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit expressly discourages motions to strike, characterizing
`
`them as “a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice.”
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 201 F.2d at 822 (citations omitted); see also Wright &
`
`Miller, § 1380, at 647-49 (“motions under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor and are
`
`infrequently granted”); id., § 1381, at 672 (“even when technically appropriate and well-founded,
`
`they often are not granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving party.”).
`
`Therefore, even if a court grants a motion to strike, “the general practice is to grant the defendant
`
`leave to amend.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`B.E.’s Claim That The Iqbal/Twombly Standard Applies To Affirmative
`Defenses Should Be Rejected
`
`People Media’s Affirmative Defenses are adequately stated under Rules 8(b) and (c) and
`
`governing precedent. B.E.’s claim that People Media’s asserted affirmative defenses should be
`
`held to a higher standard than B.E.’s infringement allegations has been rejected by this Court.
`
`Unlike a claim, an affirmative defense does not entitle People Media to any form of relief. This
`
`difference is expressly reflected in the language of Rule 8. Specifically, while Rule 8(a)
`
`provides that “a claim for relief” must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
`
`that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Rule 8(b), by contrast, requires only that a party “state in
`
`short and plain terms its defenses.”3 Consequently, district courts in the Sixth Circuit have found
`
`
`3 B.E. claims that “[n]othing would be added if Rule 8(b)(1)(a) said that [a defendant] must
`‘state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it showing that the
`opposing party is not entitled to relief.’” D.E. 33-1 at 9. B.E. does not explain why the rule
`does not state that a defendant must “show in short and plain terms its defenses” or why this
`Court should ignore the canon of statutory interpretation that different phrasings within a
`statute should be given different meanings. See Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200,
`(continued…)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 14 of 25 PageID 490
`
`
`the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards inapplicable to affirmative defenses.4 See, e.g.,
`
`McLemore v. Regions Bank, Nos. 3:08–cv–0021 & 3:08–cv–1003, 2010 WL 1010092, at *14
`
`(M.D. Tenn. Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Sixth Circuit has consistently used ‘fair notice’ as the
`
`standard for whether a defendant has sufficiently pleaded an affirmative defense. Twombly and
`
`Iqbal did not change this.”) (citations omitted); First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am. v. Camps Servs., No.
`
`08-cv-12805, 2009 WL 22861, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2009) (“Twombly’s analysis of the
`
`‘short and plain statement’ requirement of Rule 8(a) is inapplicable to [a motion to strike
`
`affirmative defenses].”); see also Senju Pharms. v. Apotex, Inc., Civ. No. 12-159-SLR, 2013 WL
`
`444928, at *4 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2013) (same).
`
`Moreover, courts have stated numerous other reasons why the pleading standards for
`
`affirmative defenses at issue in this case differ from the standards for pleading claims for relief:
`
`(1) a diminished concern that plaintiffs receive notice in light of their
`ability to obtain more information during discovery;
`
`(2) the absence of a concern that the defense is “unlocking the doors of
`discovery”;
`
`(3) the limited discovery costs, in relation to the costs imposed on a
`defendant, since it is unlikely that either side will pursue discovery on
`frivolous defenses;
`
`
`(…continued)
`
`
`208 (1993) (“W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but
`omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely
`in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”) (internal quotation omitted).
`
`4 The Sixth Circuit, post-Twombly/Iqbal, has stated 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). This holding has been applied to
`affirmative defenses similar to those raised by People Media. See Kilgore-Wilson, 2012 WL
`4062663, at *3.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 07/25/13 Page 15 of 25 PageID 491
`
`
`(4) the unfairness of holding the defendant to the same pleading standard
`as the plaintiff, when the defendant has only a limited time to respond
`after service of the complaint . . . ;
`
`(5) the low likelihood that motions to strike . . . would expedite the
`litigation given that leave to amend is routinely granted;
`
`(6) the risk that a defendant will waive a defense at trial by failing to plead
`it at the early stage of the litigation;
`
`(7) the lack of detail in Form 30, which demonstrates the appropriate
`pleading of an affirmative defense; and
`
`(8) the fact that a heightened pleading requirement would produce more
`motions to strike, which are disfavored.
`
`See Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. 10-1045 RMB-JS, 2011 WL
`
`6934557, at *1-2 (D. Del. Dec. 30, 2011) (collecting cases). Therefore, motions to strike
`
`affirmative defenses are appropriately viewed as “a drastic remedy.” Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
`
`Norma Espinosa 2007-1 Ins. Trust, No. 09–300–LPS, 2011 WL 710970, at *4 (D. Del. Feb. 22,
`
`2011). Moreover, such motions should only be granted if “they [the affir