The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants 5.11, Inc. and Wiley X, Inc. (ECF No. 14).
On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. ("Oakley") initiated this action by filing the Complaint for patent infringement. (ECF No. 1). On November 22, 2011, Oakley filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11). On December 9, 2011, Defendants 5.11, Inc. ("5.11") and Wiley X, Inc. ("Wiley X") filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14). On December 22, 2011, Oakley filed an opposition. (ECF No. 15). On December 30, 2011, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 16).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Oakley has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling several lines of eyewear since at least 1985. (ECF No. 11 at ¶ 8). Oakley currently holds three patents at issue in this case. Patent No. 5,387,949 ("the '949 patent"), entitled "Eyeglass Connection Device," connects an eyeglass lens to an earstem. This device "enables the user to interchange different earstems with different lenses." (ECF No. 11, Ex. A at 5). The two remaining patents at issue are Patent No. D543,572 ("the D572 patent"), entitled "Eyeglass"; and Patent No. D384,686 ("the D686 patent"), entitled "Eyeglass Front." (ECF No. 11 at ¶¶ 10, 11).
Defendants 5.11 and Wiley X:
[h]ave, and continue to, knowingly, intentionally and willfully directly infringe, engage in acts of contributory infringement, and/or induce infringement of the '949 patent by directly or indirectly making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing eyewearwhich are covered by one or more claims of the '949 patent. (ECF No. 11 at ¶ 16).
Defendants 5.11 and Wiley X received written notice of Oakley's ownership rights in the '949, D572, and D686 patents as early as July 25, 2011. Id. at ¶ 13. Oakley has provided constructive notice to the public by placing its patents on the products and/or packaging. Id. at ¶ 14. Oakley has not given Defendants permission or license to use its patents. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 19, 21. Defendants have and will continue to receive profits through its manufacture and sale of eyewear that infringe upon each patent. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 22. Oakley alleges claims for willful and intentional infringement of each of its three patents against 5.11 and Wiley X. Id. at ¶¶ 16-21.
Defendants 5.11 and Wiley X contend that Oakley's Amended Complaint must be dismissed because it fails to specifically identify any accused products of either 5.11 or Wiley X that infringe upon the three patents at issue. (ECF No. 14 at 6). Defendants contend that "even courts in districts with local patent rules have required plaintiffs to identify specific accused products in the complaint" in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Id. at 7. Defendants contend that Oakley's Amended Complaint fails even under the more liberal pleading standard under Form 18*fn1 for patent infringement claims because it fails to identify the accused products. Id.
Defendants contend Oakley must allege facts which establish: (1) there has been direct infringement; and (2) Defendants "knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement," in order to specify a factual basis for indirect infringement. Id. Defendants contend Oakley fails to state a factual basis for willful infringement. Id. at 10. Defendants contend Oakley must allege facts indicating either 5.11 or Wiley X's knowledge of the patents at issue or Defendants' "objective recklessness." Id.
Oakley contends its reference to the alleged infringement of "eyewear" is sufficient to meet the pleading standards of Form 18. (ECF No. 15 at 3). Oakley contends that its Amended Complaint satisfies the Rule 8 requirement of "facial plausibility," even if the Court relies on the pleading standard in Twombly and Iqbal. Id.at 2. Oakley contends it "need only plead facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice." Id. at 3. Oakley contends it will serve "detailed identification of Defendants' infringing products" when required by Local Patent Rule 3.1. Id.
Oakley contends its claims of indirect infringement "provide Defendants with fair notice of [its] claim and are plead with the specificity ...