On August 21, 2013, Judge Godbey issued an Order (available here) resolving several motions filed in the OnAsset v. 7PSolutions case. Judge Godbey held that the Court had personal jurisdiction over 7PSolutions, and venue was proper in the Northern District of Texas. Judge Godbey also held that the case should not be transferred to Indiana because 7PSolutions had not carried its transfer burden under In re Volkswagen.
Finally, Judge Godbey granted 7PSolutions’ motion to dismiss OnAsset’s claims for indirect and willful infringement:
The Court finds that the complaint does not sufficiently state the contested claims. First, as to indirect infringement, the complaint asserts that 7PSolutions “has induced and induces its customers and end users to infringe” the two patents at issue. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 15. OnAsset has pled no facts to support these conclusions. The Court concludes, therefore, that OnAsset has not stated a plausible claim of indirect infringement. Second, OnAsset’s assertions of willful infringement are limited to conclusory statements that, on information and belief, 7PSolutions was aware of the patents in question. OnAsset has provided no further facts in support of its claim. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has not stated a plausible claim for willful infringement.
OnAsset was given an opportunity to amend its complaint.