Yoldas Askan v. FARO Technologies, Inc., decided May 12, 2025

Case: Yoldas Askan v. FARO Technologies, Inc. Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case Number: 2024-2258 Decided: May 12, 2025 Presiding Judges: Prost, Reyna, and Stark, Circuit Judges. Nature of Disposition: Nonprecedential.

I. Executive Summary

This case involves an appeal by Yoldas Askan (pro se) from a district court decision dismissing his patent infringement complaint against FARO Technologies, Inc. with prejudice. Mr. Askan alleged that certain FARO products infringed his U.S. Patent Nos. 9,300,841 and 10,032,255, both related to smoothing three-dimensional images. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a plausible claim of infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The core issues on appeal concern the district court's handling of procedural matters and its decision to dismiss the complaint without allowing discovery. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that the complaint's allegations were conclusory and did not meet the plausibility standard required for pleading patent infringement. The court also upheld the denial of discovery, emphasizing that discovery is not permitted to gather facts needed to establish a plausible claim at the pleading stage, particularly when the requested information is highly confidential.

II. Background

• Parties:Plaintiff-Appellant: Yoldas Askan (pro se)

• Defendant-Appellee: FARO Technologies, Inc.

• Patents-in-Suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,300,841 ('841 patent) and 10,032,255 ('255 patent), relating to smoothing three-dimensional images.

• Procedural History:

• May 2023: Mr. Askan filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of both patents by FARO products.

• Mr. Askan filed a First Amended Complaint.

• July 2023: FARO moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, citing conclusory allegations.

• October 2023: Magistrate judge recommended granting FARO's motion.

• December 2023: District court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting Mr. Askan leave to file a Second Amended Complaint with the warning that failure to comply with the order and rules would result in dismissal with prejudice.

• January 12, 2024: Mr. Askan filed a Second Amended Complaint.

• February 8, 2024: FARO filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

• February 9, 2024: FARO filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint, which later caused confusion regarding the timeliness of the motion to dismiss.

• February 21, 2024: Mr. Askan filed an opposition to FARO's motion to dismiss and requested discovery of accused source code.

• March 27, 2024: Magistrate judge recommended denying FARO's motion to dismiss, believing the answer mooted the motion.

• March 31, 2024: FARO objected to the magistrate judge's report.

• April 24, 2024: District court rejected the magistrate judge's report, struck FARO's answer due to understandable confusion regarding timing, and allowed the motion to dismiss to remain pending.

• April 26, 2024: Mr. Askan moved to strike FARO's motion to dismiss.

• June 26, 2024: District court denied Mr. Askan's motion to strike, granted FARO's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment. The court erroneously stated that Mr. Askan had not responded to the motion to dismiss.

• July 1, 2024: Mr. Askan moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) based on the court's error.

• July 17, 2024: District court construed Mr. Askan's motion as a request for reconsideration, granted it, considered Mr. Askan's overlooked opposition, and affirmed its prior dismissal with prejudice. The court noted Mr. Askan's admission that establishing plausibility required reverse engineering the ’255 patent and obtaining source code for the ’841 patent.

• Appeal: Mr. Askan appealed the district court's dismissal and related procedural rulings.

III. Key Themes and Ideas

1. Pleading Standard for Patent Infringement (Rule 12(b)(6) and Plausibility): The central theme is the requirement for a patent infringement complaint to state a plausible claim for relief. This standard, derived from Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal), requires more than just reciting claim elements and concluding that the accused product meets them.

2. Quote: "Generally, a complaint is sufficiently pled under Rule 12(b)(6) if the claim is plausible, rather than merely 'possib[le]' or 'conceivable.'"

3. Quote: "A complaint claiming patent infringement must contain 'factual allegations that, when taken as true, articulate why it is plausible that the accused product infringes the patent claim,' and must do more than 'recit[e] the claim elements and merely conclud[e] that the accused product has those elements.'" (citing Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.)

4. The court noted that Mr. Askan's allegations were conclusory and failed to explain how FARO's products infringed at least claim 1 of each patent.

5. Pro Se Litigant Standard: While courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, this does not exempt them from meeting minimal pleading standards.

6. Quote: "We construe pro se litigants’ pleadings 'liberally,' but 'a pro se plaintiff must still meet minimal standards to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).'"

7. Denial of Discovery to Establish a Plausible Claim: The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Mr. Askan's request for discovery (specifically, source code) to obtain facts needed to plausibly plead infringement. Discovery is generally not permitted before a cognizable claim is laid out.

8. Quote: "The court properly determined it could not permit discovery in order for Mr. Askan to obtain enough facts upon which to plausibly plead an infringement claim." (citing Iqbal and Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.)

9. Quote: "Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) ('Facial challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief, should, however, be resolved before discovery begins.')"

10. The court emphasized that the requested source code was "highly confidential" and could not be considered "before a cognizable claim is laid out."

11. The court also noted that Mr. Askan himself admitted that plausibility for the '255 patent required reverse engineering and for the '841 patent required disclosure of source code.

12. District Court's Discretion in Procedural Matters: The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's handling of several procedural issues, including treating Mr. Askan's Rule 60(b) motion as a motion for reconsideration and striking FARO's answer.

13. Reconsideration: District courts have inherent discretion to reconsider judgments or orders sua sponte. The court's reconsideration here addressed an admitted error (overlooking Mr. Askan's opposition).

14. Quote: "district courts have discretion to reconsider a judgment or order sua sponte."

15. Striking the Answer: Courts have inherent authority to strike pleadings to manage their dockets efficiently. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking FARO's answer, recognizing the legitimate confusion regarding timing.

16. Quote: "A court has inherent authority to strike a pleading to 'ensure prompt disposition of legal actions.'" (citing State Exch. Bank v. Hartline)

17. Rule 56(d) Applicability: The court clarified that Rule 56(d), which allows for discovery in relation to a motion for summary judgment, is not applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

18. Quote: "Moreover, Rule 56(d) only pertains to motions for summary judgment, not motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)."
    

IV. Conclusion of the Court

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions, including:

• The reconsideration order.

• The order striking FARO’s answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

• The order dismissing Mr. Askan’s complaint with prejudice.

• The order declining Mr. Askan’s discovery request.

The court found Mr. Askan's arguments on appeal unpersuasive. Costs were assessed against Mr. Askan.