By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., et al., Civil Action Action No. 10-812-SLR (D.Del., July 12, 2011), the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint of plaintiff Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC. (“EON”). In its second amended complaint, EON asserted claims against defendants FLO TV Inc. (“FLO TV”), MobiTV, Inc. (“MobiTV”), U.S. Cellular Corp. (“U.S. Cellular”), LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. (“LG”), Motorola Mobility (“Motorola”), Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (“Samsung”), Sprint Nextel Corp. (“Sprint”), Research in Motion Corp (“RIM”), HTC America Inc. (“HTC”), Palm, Inc. (“Palm”),. Kyocera Communications Inc. (“Kyocera”), LetsTalk.com, Inc. (“LetsTalk.com”), Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), GoTV Networks, Inc. (“GoTV”), Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”), SPB Software, Inc. (“SPB”) and Simplexity, LLC d/b/a Wirefly (“Wirefly”) (collectively, “defendants”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for defendants’ alleged direct, indirect, and joint infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757, entitled “Software Controlled Multi-Mode Interactive TV Systems” (the ‘757 patent). In denying defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the direct infringement claims, the Court found that EON’s second amended complaint satisfied the minimal requirements for pleading direct infringement without the benefits of discovery. See id. at 5. In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the joint and indirect infringement claims, the Court found the EON’s second amended complaint failed to adequately set forth the requisite knowledge element for indirect infringement and failed to identify any one defendant as exercising “control or direction” over the allegedly infringing acts of the other defendants (in other words, failed to identify a single mastermind) necessary to set forth a claim for joint infringement. See id. at 9-12.

A complete copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is attached hereto.