Gharb v. Mitsubishi Elec. Automation, Inc., No. 10 C 7204, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 4, 2012) (Chang, J.).
Judge Chang granted defendant Mitsubishi Electric Automation’s (“Mitsubishi”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s patent complaint. With respect to direct infringement, plaintiff only accused Mitsubishi’s programmable logic controller (“PLC”), but in a previous suit on the patents-in-suit, the Federal Circuit held that a PLC alone could not infringe the patents.
The Court also dismissed plaintiff’s contributory infringement claims because plaintiff did not make sufficient allegations to show that Mitsubishi’s PLC was not a staple article. And plaintiff’s various exhibits showed that the PLC had multiple non-infringing uses.
Finally, the Court dismissed the inducement claims. Plaintiff only identified Mitsubishi’s PLC, not an entire security system to show direct infringement. And the PLC’s non-infringing uses called into question the necessary intent claims.