Bala Bangles, Inc. v. The P’ships & Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-16721 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2024) (Valderrama, J.).
Judge Valderrama granted defendant Blueocean Furniture’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this Schedule A case, holding that plaintiff Bala Bangles failed to state a claim for patent infringement because it did not identify any specific accused Blueocean product.
The Court held that merely providing an internet store name and link in Schedule A, without identifying the actual product allegedly infringing the design patent, amounts to bare allegations insufficient to meet plausibility requirements under Iqbal and Twombly. The Court cited Federal Circuit precedent requiring plaintiffs to sufficiently identify accused products “by photograph or name” rather than “by broad functional language.”
This decision reinforces that Schedule A plaintiffs cannot rely on generic allegations when asserting patent infringement claims. The Court distinguished patent pleading requirements from the more general allegations often accepted in trademark counterfeiting cases. Having failed to identify any specific infringing product from Blueocean, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and dissolved the preliminary injunction as to Blueocean.
The Court also denied Blueocean’s request for sanctions because it was raised for the first time in reply, finding it would be “patently unfair” to consider arguments not raised in the opening brief.