Free Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 21.4 kB
Pages: 2
Date: September 3, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 411 Words, 2,621 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/40365/21.pdf

Download Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - District Court of Delaware ( 21.4 kB)


Preview Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:08-cv-00348-GMS

Document 21

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and LG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., : : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : PETTERS GROUP WORLDWIDE, LLC, : POLAROID CORPORATION, and : WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL : ELECTRONICS, LLC, : : Defendants. :

C.A. No. 08-348-GMS

PETTERS GROUP WORLDWIDE, LLC'S AND POLAROID CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO PETTERS Defendants, Polaroid Corporation ("Polaroid") and Petters Group Worldwide, LLC ("Petters"), hereby jointly1 request the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs', Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s ("Samsung") and LG Electronics Co., Ltd.'s ("LG"), Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state a cause of action. See Amended Complaint [D.I. 16]. However, if the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action, Petters and Polaroid hereby jointly request pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) that the Court require Plaintiffs to plead with greater specificity their cause of action, in order for Polaroid and Petters to be able to properly answer the Amended Complaint. Alternatively, to the extent that the Amended Complaint is not dismissed against Petters and Polaroid, Petters hereby requests the Court to grant summary judgment removing Petters from this lawsuit pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as Petters does not perform any act which could otherwise form the basis of any infringement claim of Plaintiffs'
1

Petters is the parent corporation of Polaroid.

ME1 7684759v.1

Case 1:08-cv-00348-GMS

Document 21

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 2 of 2

asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. ยง271(a). Petters and Polaroid respectfully refer the Court to their Opening Brief filed herewith for the basis of the relief sought.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 3, 2008 By: /s/ Daniel M. Silver Michael P. Kelly (DE ID# 2295) Andrew S. Dupre (DE ID# 4621) Daniel M. Silver (DE ID# 4758) McCarter & English, LLP Renaissance Centre 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 984-6300 telephone (302) 984-6399 facsimile [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Lee J. Eulgen (admitted pro hac vice) James P. Muraff (admitted pro hac vice) Gregory J. Leighton (admitted pro hac vice) Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP 2 North La Salle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312)269-8000 Counsel for Polaroid Corporation and Petters Group Worldwide, LLC

ME1 7684759v.1