Now AOL has joined Google's
Reply in support of its
motion to dismiss Interval Licensing's
complaint for failure to state a claim. Even for direct infringement, where the rules are arguably looser as
Interval has just argued, AOL says, Interval "fails to meet the pleading standards of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." I'm guessing they read Interval Licensing's argument about direct infringement not needing to be as specific as Google was suggesting it should be, and decided it was worth responding. So it says, in effect, that even if Interval is deemed correct in its argument that Iqbal and Twombly don't apply to patent cases, it still is too vague. And it asks the court to dismiss Interval's Complaint against AOL "because Interval's Complaint fails to meet the pleading standards of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
AOL says if Interval had been specific, it would have just answered, and the case could have progressed. However, it files this reply in support of Google's motion, joining it, because it has no clear picture of what Interval is complaining about.
More...
