Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

DTC argues that the Deltran Defendants are separate legal entities and Plaintiff’s claim that overlapping officers or shareholders coupled with DTC’s right to maintain quality control under the trademark license is not “use” under Section 271(a).

Plaintiff further contends that Deltran designs, manufactures, and distributes the Jump Starter products “which incorporate DTC’s know-how, trade secrets, documentation, data, software, and other knowledge, information, and materials controlled by DTC that is part of the Licensed Technology.” (Id. (quoting Doc. 72-23, ¶ 12)).

While the degree of control exerted by DTC over the Deltran Defendants is somewhat opaque, as the court in Garrett astutely noted: “[i]t is hard to imagine a scenario where, prior to discovery, a plaintiff can sufficiently uncover evidence of internal business practices—like in-house testing—for purposes of supporting

all trade secrets, know-how, formulas, prototypes, specifications, directions, instructions, test protocols, procedures, and results, studies, analyses, raw material sources, data, manufacturing data, formulation or production technology, conceptions, ideas, innovation, discoveries, inventions, processes, methods, materials, machines, devices, formulae, equipment, enhancements, modifications, technological developments, techniques, systems, tools, designs, drawings, plans, software, documentation, data, programs and other knowledge, information, skills and materials controlled by Licensor pertaining to the Licensed Products and necessary and/or useful in the manufacture, sale or use of the License Products, and any modifications, variations, derivative works and improvements of or relating to any of the foregoing.