By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Minkus Electronic Display Systems, Inc. v. Adaptive Micro Systems LLC, Civil Action No. 10-666-SLR (D.Del., March 16, 2011), the Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for indirect infringement. Id. at 7. In their motions, defendants argued that plaintiff failed to alleged sufficient facts to establish that: (1) a third party infringed the patent-in-suit prior to the filing of the first amended complaint as a result of any acts by defendants; (2) any specific product that is not capable of a substantial non-infringing use was sold by defendants prior to the filing of the first amended complaint; and (3) defendants possessed the requisite knowledge and intent to indirectly infringe the patent-in-suit at the time of the alleged infringement. Id. at 4. After analyzing defendants’ contentions, the Court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts that would allow the court to infer that defendants had any knowledge of the patent-in-suit at the time there were committing the allegedly infringing activities. Id. at 6-7. Rather, the first amended complaint simply contained a mere recitation of the elements of indirect infringement, which the Court found insufficient. Id. at 7.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached hereto.