In five S.D.N.Y. cases presided over by Judge Stearns of D. Mass., Philips is suing a variety of entities for violation of certain license agreements and Philips’ rights in Patent No. 5,068,846. In three of those cases Philips also named as defendants individual officers, directors, and investors of asserted wrongdoers. Those individual entities moved to dismiss their involvement from the three relevant cases. That motion to dismiss was allowed in January and the memorandum explaining that order issued March 12.
Philips alleged that the individual entities exerted control over the CD replicator companies sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and thus are liable for direct patent infringement and active inducement of breach of contract. Philips also alleged that that the entities were liable for inducement to infringe, without needing to pierce the veil.
The court ruled that Philips’ conclusory pleading (which was filed pre-Iqbal / Twombly, and which was not subsequently amended following discovery) was insufficient to support a piercing of the veil or a claim of induced infringement and so dismissed the requesting entities.
In one of the other cases, discussed here: http://bostonipblog.typepad.com/dmass-ip-blog/2010/03/judge-stearns-refuses-to-dismiss-defendant-in-sdny-case.html, Judge Stearns refused to dismiss one of the defendants.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Entertainment Distribution Co. (
Comments