Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GMP Technologies, LLC v. Zicam

December 9, 2009

GMP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC PLAINTIFF,
v.
ZICAM, LLC AND MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Joan B. Gottschall

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff GMP Technologies, LLC ("GMP") brings this action against defendants Zicam, LLC ("Zicam") and Zicam's parent corporation, Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. ("Matrixx") (collectively, "defendants"). In its Amended Complaint, GMP seeks a declaration of invalidity and noninfringement of two patents in Count I and damages under various state law tort doctrines in Counts II through IV. Presently before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss Count I as to Matrixx, which defendants assert has no interest in the patents at issue, and Counts II through IV as to all defendants on the grounds of federal preemption.*fn1 The court grants defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to GMP's allegations against Matrixx in Count I and denies the motion with regard to GMP's state-law allegations against defendants.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows defendants to seek dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Pisciotta v. Old Nat'l Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). Legal conclusions, however, are not entitled to any assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1940 (2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "the complaint need only contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). However, the allegations must provide the defendant with "fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The plaintiff need not plead particularized facts, but the factual allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[.]" Id. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1940 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

II. ANALYSIS

Before turning to the merits of the motion to dismiss, the court addresses two preliminary questions.

A. Matrixx's letters to Walgreen's

GMP's claims against Matrixx and its state-law claims against Zicam arise from two letters: the first, dated October 24, 2008, is from Matrixx's internal counsel to Walgreen Co. ("Walgreen's"), which is not a party to this case; and the second, dated October 31, 2008 is from outside counsel for Matrixx and Zicam, also to Walgreen's. In its Amended Complaint, GMP refers to these letters without attaching them. See Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13. Generally, matters outside the pleading are not considered in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 430 (7th Cir. 1993). However, the court construes documents as part of the pleadings if the defendants attach the documents to their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and if those documents are referenced in plaintiff's complaint and are central to its claim. See Venture Assocs. Corp., 987 F.2d at 430. The October 24 and October 31 letters satisfy each of these requirements, and the court considers them as part of GMP's Amended Complaint.

B. Matrixx's Interest in the Subject Patents

The question of Matrixx's interest in the subject patents is relevant to both parts of the motion: Matrixx asserts that it has no interest in the patents, and therefore is not a proper defendant to GMP's declaratory action, while the parties debate the effect of Matrixx's interest in the patents on questions of federal preemption. In its Amended Complaint, GMP never alleges that Matrixx owns the patents at issue. However, Matrixx muddied the issue by attaching the October 24 and October 31 letters to its motion to dismiss. In the October 24 letter, internal counsel for Martrixx wrote that "Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (Matrixx), through its subsidiary Zicam, LLC, owns several patents," including the patents at issue here. See Mem. Ex. B; see also id. Ex. C (stating that "Zicam," defined as "Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and its subsidiary Zicam LLC," owns the patents at issue). A reasonable inference from the imprecise language in these letters might be that Matrixx owns at least some interest in the patents at issue. But a party can plead itself out of court, see Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 372 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir. 2004), and GMP has done so here, repeatedly alleging that Matrixx has no interest in the subject patents. See Compl. ¶ 18.

C. Declaratory Action

GMP's declaratory action against Matrixx must be dismissed. A parent corporation generally has no standing to bring an infringement suit for a patent that its subsidiary owns. See DePuy, Inc. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1238 (N.D. Ill. 2005); see also GPS Indus., Inc. v. Altex Corp., No. 07-CV-0831-K, 2009 WL 2337921, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2009). Declaratory noninfringement actions are mirror images of infringement suits, see VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and so a party that lacks standing to bring an infringement suit is not the proper defendant to a declaratory noninfringement action. See Fina Research, S.A. v. Baroid Ltd., 141 F.3d 1479, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (summarizing nonprecedential opinion). Matrixx, owning no interest in the patents at issue here, would have no standing to bring a patent infringement suit against GMP, and so is not the proper party defendant to GMP's declaratory action.

D. State Law Claims

Matrixx and Zicam also assert that GMP's state-law claims against them must be dismissed because those claims are preempted by federal law. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reiterated the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.