Alterg, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC
388 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To survive a motion to dismiss under the plausibility standard established by Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must allege specific factual content for each element of a claim, rather than relying on broad, categorical, or conclusory allegations.
Facts:
- AlterG, Inc. is a medical device company that develops and sells 'Anti-Gravity Treadmills' using its patented Differential Air Pressure (DAP) technology.
- Sean Whalen (founder/inventor), Thomas Allen (sales/business development), and Michael James Bean (sales) are former employees of AlterG who had all signed confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements.
- From 2012 to 2015, Whalen and Allen were substantially involved in AlterG's confidential 'Low-Cost Platform Project' (LCPP) to develop a more affordable machine, which AlterG never commercialized.
- Whalen and Allen left AlterG in March and April 2015, respectively. Bean resigned in April 2017.
- In late 2016, Allen and Bean founded a competing company, Boost Treadmills LLC, and Whalen joined them to work on product development.
- At the end of 2017, Boost launched its 'Boost One' treadmill, which AlterG claims was developed using confidential information from the LCPP and infringes on AlterG's patents.
- Boost allegedly made false claims about its product's capabilities and disparaging remarks about AlterG's financial health to prospective customers.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff AlterG, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Boost Treadmills LLC, Sean Whalen, Thomas Allen, and Michael James Bean (Defendants).
- The complaint alleged ten causes of action, including patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, false advertising, and trade libel.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all ten counts of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint making broad, categorical allegations of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and other business torts, without specific factual details supporting each element, state a plausible claim for relief sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss?
Opinions:
Majority - Chen, J.
No, a complaint with such deficiencies fails to state a plausible claim for relief. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference of liability, moving beyond mere possibility. Here, AlterG’s claims were dismissed for lacking the requisite specificity. The patent infringement claim failed because it did not allege that the accused product practiced every element of the patent claims. The trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims failed because the alleged secrets and confidential information were described in broad, vague categories (e.g., 'positive and negative learnings') rather than with sufficient particularity. Similarly, the claims for false advertising and trade libel were deficient because they failed to specify the 'who, what, when, where, and how' of the alleged misconduct, as required for claims sounding in fraud.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a clear application of the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility pleading standard in the context of intellectual property and complex business torts. It underscores that plaintiffs cannot use vague or conclusory allegations to get past the pleading stage and into discovery. The court's reasoning reinforces a heightened practical burden on plaintiffs, requiring them to plead specific facts mapping to each element of a claim, such as identifying which trade secrets were taken or how an accused product infringes every limitation of a patent claim. This holding makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file lawsuits based on suspicion alone, demanding a more thoroughly investigated factual basis at the outset of litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Alterg, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC