2:12-cv-14080-SFC-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 07/30/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 303
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Genetic Technologies Limited,
an Australian corporation,
Genesis Genetics Institute, L.L.C.,
a Michigan limited liability company,
Case No. 12-14080
Honorable Sean F. Cox
DEFENDANT DICKSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS
In this patent case, the Plaintiff Genetic Technologies Limited (“Plaintiff”) asserts patent
infringement claims against both a corporate entity and an individual defendant, Stanley
Dickson, Jr. (“Dickson”). The matter is currently before the Court on Defendant Dickson’s
Motion to Dismiss, brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The parties have briefed the
issues and the Court finds that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. See Local
Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. This Court shall decide the
motion without oral argument.
Defendant Dickson’s Motion to Dismiss asserts that Plaintiff’s claims against him should
be dismissed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, for two reasons.
First, Dickson asserts that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Dickson
because it includes insufficient factual allegations to support corporate veil piercing. Second,
Dickson asserts that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it contains
2:12-cv-14080-SFC-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 07/30/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 304
insufficient factual allegations to make it plausible that Dickson induced infringement of
With respect to Dickson’s first ground for relief, this Court concludes that regardless of
whether Michigan law or the law of the Federal Circuit applies, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient
facts as to veil piercing to survive a Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See
Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc. 917 F.2d 544, 552 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“a court may
exert its equitable powers and disregard the corporate entity if it decides that piercing the veil
will prevent fraud, illegality, injustice, a contravention of public policy, or prevent the
corporation from shielding someone from criminal liability.”); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v.
Eco Chem, Inc., 757 F.2d 1256, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“One of the ‘other factors’ to which
courts have looked when ‘piercing the corporate veil’ is whether insistence on the corporate form
would enable the stockholder to avoid legal liability.”); Dutton Partners, LLC v. CMS Energy
Corp., 290 Mich.App. 635, 643 (2010) (Under Michigan law, “[f]or the corporate veil to be
pierced, the plaintiff must aver facts that show (1) that the corporate entity is a mere
instrumentality of another entity or individual, (2) that the corporate entity was used to commit
fraud or a wrong, and (3) that, as a result, the plaintiff suffered an unjust injury or loss.”); Grand
Rapids Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Coop Properties, LLC, 495 Fed. App’x 598, 601, 2012 WL
3553488 (6th Cir. 2012) (Contrary to the defendants’ argument, “Michigan law does not require
a showing of fraud or illegality before the corporate form will be disregarded” . . . Rather, the
corporate veil may be pierced as long as, ‘the injustice sought to be prevented [is] in some
manner relate[d] to a misuse of the corporate form short of fraud or illegality.’ Soloman v.
Western Hills Dev. Co., 110 Mich.App. 257, 312 N.W.2d 428, 432 (1981)).
2:12-cv-14080-SFC-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 07/30/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 305
As his second ground for relief, Defendant Dickson contends that the patent infringement
claim asserted against him should be dismissed under Twombly because it contains insufficient
factual allegations to make it plausible that Dickson induced infringement of Plaintiff’s patent.
Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and having considered the
parties’ respective arguments, however, this Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint complies with the applicable pleading requirements. See In re Bill of Lading, 681
F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012); K-Tech Telecomm., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d
1277 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2013). As the Federal Circuit has noted, while the applicable pleading
requirements “serve as a bar against frivolous pleading, it is not an extraordinarily high one.” Id.
The applicable standard has been satisfied here. Defendant Dickson’s arguments to the contrary
seek to impose additional pleading requirements or raise issues more appropriately resolved at
the summary judgment stage.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Dickson’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: July 30, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July
30, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.