## Facts

- Robern, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 6,092,884, issued July 25, 2000, covering a mirrored cabinet door and method of construction.
- Robern alleged that competitor Glasscrafters, Inc. manufactured and sold mirrored medicine cabinets that infringed the ’884 patent.
- The complaint identified the patent and listed accused Glasscrafters products, but did not allege claim-by-claim infringement facts or describe how the accused products satisfied specific claim limitations.
- Glasscrafters moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that following the abrogation of Rule 84 and Form 18, the complaint had to satisfy the Rule 8(a) plausibility standard under Twombly and Iqbal.

## Issues

1. Whether, after the abrogation of Rule 84 and Form 18, a direct patent infringement complaint must satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard.
2. Whether Robern’s infringement allegations, which largely tracked a Form 18-style approach, stated a plausible claim for relief under Rule 8(a).

## Decision

- The court held that, after the abrogation of Rule 84 and Form 18, direct patent infringement pleadings are governed by Twombly/Iqbal plausibility.
- The court found Robern’s complaint insufficient because it did not plead facts explaining how any accused product met the limitations of any asserted claim.
- The court granted Glasscrafters’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
- The court granted Robern leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

## Legal Principles

- Following abrogation of Rule 84 and Form 18, there is no form-based safe harbor for direct patent infringement complaints; Rule 8(a), as interpreted by Twombly and Iqbal, controls.
- A complaint must contain nonconclusory factual matter that makes infringement plausible, not merely possible.
- Identifying the patent and accused products, without factual allegations linking product features to particular claim elements, is generally insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where the deficiency is inadequate factual pleading rather than a legal bar to the claim.

## Conclusion

The court required direct patent infringement plaintiffs to plead factual content supporting a plausible infringement theory under Twombly and Iqbal, and dismissed a Form 18-style complaint that failed to connect the accused products to specific patent claim limitations, while allowing amendment.


Robern, Inc. v. Glasscrafters, Inc., 206 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D.N.J. 2016)