Pro Se Litigants Have Low Bar to Avoid Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)

McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., [2006-1548](September 14, 2007)[[ARCHER, Michel, Dyk] The Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal of McZeal's complaint and remanded for further procedings.
SIGNIFICANCE: A patent infringement plaintiff need only put defendant on notice of the claim against it, and need not plead the individual elements of the patent claims.
BRIEF: The District Court dismissed McZeal's 95 page complaint for infringement of his service mark INTERNATIONAL WALKIE TALKIE and his U.S. Patent No. 6,763,226. At issued was whether in the light most favorable to plaintiff, did the Complaint state a valid claim for relief. A court may grant a pro se litigant leeway on procedural matters. However, regardless of whether a plaintiff is pro see, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. A patentee need only plead facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice as to what he must defend. The plaintiff is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted. The Federal Circuit found McZeal's allegations were sufficient to allow defendants to answer, and thus meets the notice pleading required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, even though McZeal conceded that he did not know how defendant's device worked. The Federal Circuit also reversed the dismissal of McZeal's trademark infringement claim, finding the pleadings sufficient, and the district court's determination that the mark was generic was premature. The Federal Circuit commented that is was not condoning his method of pleading, but concluded he met the bar for pro se litigants.