The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terrence F. McVerry United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the following motions: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) (Document No. 10), DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) (Document No. 12), DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Document No. 14), and DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE SUR-REPLY BRIEF (Document No. 31). The motions have been thoroughly and exhaustively briefed (Document Nos. 11, 13, 15-19, 24-26, 29, 30, 32) and they are ripe for disposition.
Motion to Strike Sur-Reply Brief
Pursuant to the Practices and Procedures of Judge Terrence F. McVerry: "No surreply briefs are to be filed without leave of Court upon good cause shown." On November 12, 2010, Plaintiff asked leave of Court "to file an eight page rebuttal to Accuray's Reply." On November 15, 2010, the Court issued an Order which permitted Plaintiff "to file a Brief no more than eight pages in rebuttal to Accuray's Reply Brief.." On November 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply brief that is ten (10) pages in length, including the signature pages and certificate of service. Moreover, it is readily apparent (and uncontested) that the sur-reply was printed with 1.5 line spacing. Local Rule 5.1(B) (General Format of Papers Presented for Filing) states that the text of all documents "must be double-spaced."
Defendants contend that the sur-reply brief should be stricken because it fails to comply with the Local Rules and this chambers' Practices and Procedures. Plaintiff's counsel, in response, apologizes "for this minor oversight" but contends that Defendants' motion to strike the sur-reply is a waste of judicial resources.
The Court cannot agree with the suggestion of Plaintiff's counsel that the formatting of this sur-reply brief was either "minor" or an "oversight." The Court's Local Rules and this chambers' Practices and Procedures are not suggestions that may be disregarded at counsel's whim or convenience. Rather, they represent mandatory requirements which establish a fair and level playing field for all parties. Moreover, it certainly appears that the compressed line spacing was implemented in a deliberate and intentional effort to evade the page limitation imposed by this Court's Order of November 15, 2010. None of Plaintiff's other filings in this case were submitted in 1.5 line spacing. Even with the improper line spacing, the sur-reply brief exceeded the permitted number of pages which had been specifically requested by Plaintiff. In summary, Plaintiff's counsel has apparently disregarded the applicable rules in an attempt to obtain unfair advantage. Such tactics will not be condoned.
In accordance with the foregoing, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE SUR-REPLY BRIEF (Document No. 31) will be GRANTED.
Factual and Procedural Background
The facts set forth are based on the allegations of the Complaint. The Court is aware that Plaintiff's counsel has provided additional factual detail in his briefs, but such "after the fact allegations" are not considered by the Court in determining the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 201-02 (3d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (it is axiomatic that a complaint may not be amended by a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss).
This is a patent infringement case brought against a corporation, Accuray, Inc. ("Accuray"), and four former employees of Plaintiff Best Medical International, Inc. ("BMI"), Robert Hill, David Spellman, John David Scherch and Marcus Bittman (the "Individual Defendants"). In a nutshell, Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants formed a team to help Accuray develop a new cancer treatment system, the CyberKnife VSI, which allegedly infringes on Plaintiff's patent. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants "directly and contributorily infringed" one or more claims of its patent, and that Accuray "induced" infringement of the patent. In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that the four Individual Defendants "aided and abetted Accuray's infringement of Plaintiff's patent." Plaintiff seeks a declaration that its patent is valid and enforceable; that Defendants have directly or contributorily infringed, and/or induced infringement; and that the infringement was willful. Plaintiff also seeks attorney fees and costs, treble damages, and injunctive relief.
BMI is a Virginia corporation. Accuray is a California corporation, with a principal place of business in California. The Complaint alleges that three of the four Individual Defendants reside in western Pennsylvania. Apparently, Bittman relocated to California prior to the filing of Defendants' motion to transfer venue. The Complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction and that venue is proper in this Court.
On September 11, 2007, BMI purchased most of the assets of NOMOS Corporation and North American Scientific. As a result of the purchase, BMI became the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,596,619 ("the '619 patent"). The subject-matter of the '619 patent is generally described in the oncological community as Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ("IMRT"). In layman's terms, the technology is used in cancer treatment to conform and confine the shape of the x-rays to the shape of the tumor, thus sparing adjacent healthy tissue from radiation.
Hill is a former employee of Plaintiff who resigned and accepted employment with Accuray, presumably at some time in 2007. Plaintiff alleges that prior to his departure, Hill downloaded confidential, proprietary information and trade secrets from BMI computers. Scherch, Spellman and Bittman were also former employees of Plaintiff who became employed by Accuray at unspecified dates. The Complaint alleges that all of the Individual Defendants improperly downloaded confidential, proprietary information of BMI.
There are three other lawsuits between these parties, which are consolidated and currently pending before Judge William Standish of this Court. In Civil Action No. 07-1709, Hill sued BMI for benefits due at the time of his termination and BMI counterclaimed regarding his alleged misappropriation of confidential and trade secret information. In Civil Action No. 08-1404, BMI filed suit against the four Individual Defendants, alleging conversion and theft of trade secrets. In Civil Action No. 09-1194, BMI sued Accuray and the Individual Defendants, alleging a conspiracy to steal its confidential and trade secret information. This case was not designated by Plaintiff as a "related case" upon filing.
On November 2, 2009 and February 28, 2010, Accuray announced that it had developed and is marketing a new product, the CyberKnife VSI System, that utilizes IMRT technology. Plaintiff alleges that the "IMRT technology used in the CyberKnife VSI is owned by the Plaintiff and apparently was provided to said Defendant Accuray . . . by Defendants Scherch, Hill, Bittman and Spellman." Complaint ¶ 25. Accordingly, Plaintiff claims that the Individual Defendants have actively induced Accuray to infringe Plaintiff's patent.
In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that Accuray's manufacture and sale of the CyberKnife VSI System infringes the '619 Patent. Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants directly and contributorily infringed the Patent willfully and deliberately, and that Accuray induced infringement. In Count II, Plaintif alleges that the Individual Defendants "aided and abetted Accuray's infringement" by divulging Plaintiff's trade secrets and intellectual property to Accuray and/or by downloading Plaintiff's trade secrets and intellectual property and disclosing it to Accuray. The Complaint contains virtually identical prayers for relief after each Count, in which Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiently of the complaint filed by Plaintiff. The United States Supreme Court has held that "[a] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. ...