## Facts

- R+L Carriers, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 6,401,078, directed to methods for scanning, transmitting, and processing bills of lading in the less-than-truckload trucking industry.
- R+L sued multiple technology vendors that supplied trucking-related hardware and software (e.g., onboard computers, document imaging, and related software) used by motor-carrier customers.
- R+L alleged only indirect infringement: inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
- R+L’s theory was that motor carriers (customers) directly performed the claimed method using defendants’ systems, and defendants encouraged and supported that use through product design and instructions/marketing materials.
- In an MDL in the Southern District of Ohio, the district court dismissed the amended complaints with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the pleadings failed under Twombly/Iqbal to plausibly state claims for inducement or contributory infringement.
- R+L appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaints plausibly alleged induced infringement under § 271(b), including direct infringement by customers and defendants’ knowledge and specific intent to cause infringement.
2. Whether the amended complaints plausibly alleged contributory infringement under § 271(c), including that the accused components lacked substantial noninfringing uses.
3. How Rule 8 pleading, as interpreted by Twombly and Iqbal, applies to indirect infringement claims in patent cases.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court reversed dismissal of the § 271(b) induced infringement claims, holding the pleadings contained enough factual matter to support a reasonable inference of knowledge and specific intent to encourage customers’ direct infringement.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the § 271(c) contributory infringement claims because the allegations indicated the accused products were suitable for substantial noninfringing uses, defeating a required statutory element.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8, as applied through Twombly and Iqbal, governs patent complaints; a plaintiff must plead enough factual content to make liability plausible, not merely possible, and courts draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- Induced infringement under § 271(b) requires plausible allegations of (i) direct infringement by a third party and (ii) the accused inducer’s knowledge of the patent and specific intent to cause the infringing acts; allegations concerning product instructions, manuals, and marketing can support an inference of intent.
- Contributory infringement under § 271(c) requires plausible allegations that the accused component is especially made or adapted for infringement and is not a staple article suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
- A complaint can fail as a matter of law where its own factual assertions show substantial noninfringing uses, effectively negating the “no substantial noninfringing use” element of § 271(c).

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that indirect infringement allegations must satisfy Twombly/Iqbal plausibility, but a plaintiff may plead inducement by alleging customer direct infringement plus facts supporting an inference of the defendant’s knowledge and intent (including instructional and promotional conduct); contributory infringement fails when the pleadings themselves show substantial noninfringing uses of the accused products.


In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)