McZeal v. Sprint Nextel (Fed. Cir. 2007).
McZeal’s pro se patent infringement complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the CAFC reversed – finding that the complaint was sufficient.
In particular, the court found that the complaint is not required to specifically describe where each element of the asserted claim is found in the accused device. Those specifics regarding infringement “is something to be determined through discovery.”
To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.