Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 MARCH 2022

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: February 2022

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Blue Engine Biologics v. Arteriocyte Medical Systems Inc., No. 1:21-cv-11098-DJC, on February 10, 2022, Judge Casper denied Defendant's motion to...

United StatesIntellectual Property

This is the third in a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


In Blue Engine Biologics v. Arteriocyte Medical Systems Inc., No. 1:21-cv-11098-DJC, on February 10, 2022, Judge Casper denied Defendant's motion to dismiss direct infringement claims in Blue Engine's amended complaint, finding Blue Engine had asserted a plausible claim.

On a motion to dismiss, courts conduct a two-step, context-specific inquiry, consistent with Garcia-Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013), namely, (1) accepting factual allegations as true, and (2) determining whether the factual allegations present a “reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged.” In short, courts apply a “plausibility threshold” that “does not demand a high degree of factual specificity.” Id.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from