In Displeigh v. Samsung Electronics America, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss Displeigh’s complaint aruing that Displeigh had not specifically identified the Samsung products that allegedly infringe. Instead, Displeigh accused ““devices . . . that operate as picture frames configured to electronically display digital images, including at least Samsung’s touchscreen interface smartphones and tablets” of infringement. Samsung had argued that “a patent plaintiff must identify every claimed infringing product by model number at the inception of litigation.” On May 8, 2012, Judge Godbey issued an Order (available here) disagreeing with Samsung’s position:
The Court believes that identifying Samsung’s touchscreen interface smartphones and tablets gives Samsung sufficient notice of Displeigh’s claims. In any event, Displeigh must disclose the specific models it contends infringe in due course under Miscellaneous Order 62 ¶ 3-1(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court denies Samsung’s motion to dismiss Displeigh’s claim for direct infringement.
The Court notes that the actual language of Displeigh’s complaint is broader: “devices . . . , including at least Samsung’s touchscreen interface smartphones and tablets.” Linguistically, this wording leaves open the possibility that Displeigh complains that Samsung products other than smartphone and tablets also infringe its patent. Because this language fails to give Samsung notice of a claim of infringement by any devices other than Samsung’s touchscreen interface smartphones and tablets, the Court will construe “including at least” to mean “specifically.”
Displeigh is represented by Kirk Pittard of Durham & Pittard LLP; and Darrell Dotson, Gregory Love, Scott Stevens, and Todd Brandt, all of Stevens Love.
Samsung is represented by David Wille, Henry Chen, Michael Barta, and Neil Sirota, all of Baker Botts.