Antedating bill lading
Factual Background The ′078 patent relates to the less-than-a-load trucking industry. After consolidation, the freight is reloaded onto trucks. Because these lawsuits were spread throughout three federal district courts, RL moved to have the cases consolidated and transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. The cases were consolidated for discovery and all pretrial proceedings, including claim construction.
The section has been held to apply not only to cases of damage, actual or constructive, done to the goods in the strict sense but also to cases of non-delivery or delay in delivery.
Unless damage, actual or constructive, is done to the goods or in other words, unless the goods carried or to be carried are affected in some manner, the section can have no application.
With him on the brief for defendants-appellees Qualcomm, Inc., et al was Tillman J.
P., of Washington, DC, argued for all defendants-appellees.
As explained by the patent, carriers in this industry pick up freight from several different customers, which is often destined for different locations around the country. In response, RL sent cease-and-desist letters to Driver Tech, People Net, and several companies RL suspected of direct infringement. After receiving the letters, Driver Tech and People Net filed declaratory judgment actions in their home districts, seeking judgments of invalidity and non-infringement.
There can be no breach of contract of carriage or breach of duty in relation to carriage within the meaning of the section before the goods are delivered to the carrier.The object of this section is not to provide a remedy for something done which is not connected with carriage or delivery of actual goods; a claim for issuing an antedated bill of lading or a false bill of lading, or a bill of lading in contravention of the Hague Rules is a claim arising out of a bill of lading but is not a claim within the scope of the section because, without anything more, such a claim is not in respect of damage done to the goods nor does it relate to the goods carried by the ship; a claim based on the wrongful exercise of lien on cargo by a ship owner is an Admiralty cause within this section.
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges. White, Thompson Hine LLP, of Columbus, OH, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Here, we briefly summarize the general nature of RL's allegations, providing greater detail in Section II, as appropriate. In the discussion section of this opinion, we discuss these factual differences and the sufficiency of each individual amended complaint. Discussion Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “generally requires only a plausible ‘short plain’ statement of the plaintiff's claim,” showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 648 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir.2011) (citing In re Travel Agent Comm'n Antitrust Litig., 583 F.3d 896, 902 (6th Cir.2009)). This plausibility standard is met 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, 556 U. Because we agree that RL failed to state a claim of contributory infringement against the Appellees, but find that RL adequately stated a claim of induced infringement, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part and remand. RL, the owner of the ′078 patent, is a major less-than-a-load carrier that utilizes the ′078's patented method in its business. to Dismiss at 2, In Re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. These trucks then either deliver the freight to its destination, or transport the freight to a distribution terminal in another city to be re-sorted and reconsolidated for delivery. To more efficiently enable delivery in the less-than-a-load trucking industry, the ′078 patent claims a method that “automates the process of receiving transportation documentation and producing advance loading manifests therefrom to optimize load planning and dynamic product shipment and delivery control.” Id. The patented method enables shipping documents to be sent directly from the truck driver to a common point, such as a terminal, so billing and load planning can occur while the driver is en route with the freight. After the cases were consolidated, ten of the alleged indirect infringers filed motions to dismiss or motions for judgment on the pleadings. After reviewing the briefing and conducting oral argument, the district court granted all of those motions. The district court granted RL leave to amend its claims, however. RL elected to file amended complaints against each of the six Appellees. While each of the amended complaints contains the same allegations with respect to the “nature of action,” “jurisdiction and venue,” and “infringed patent sections,” they contain unique allegations as to the actions that allegedly give rise to the individual complaints.