广东省贸易摩擦应对综合服务平台
（海外知识产权）

Despite the clerk's entry of default against Hong Kong-based defendant iAqua Limited for its failure to formally respond to the patentees' February 1, 2022 Complaint, federal district court Judge Smith in the Southern District of Florida twice denied patentees' motions for default judgment and, on January 31, 2025, dismissed the patent infringement lawsuit.

尽管书记员因总部位于香港的被告iAqua Limited未对专利权人2022年2月1日的起诉书作出正式回应而登记其缺席，但佛罗里达州南区联邦地区法院的史密斯法官两次驳回了专利权人要求缺席判决的动议，并于2025年1月31日驳回了这起专利侵权诉讼。

The plaintiffs Cayago Tec, GmbH and Cayago Americas, Inc. (collectively "Cayago") had filed an earlier lawsuit in the same district in 2019 against defendant's Florida-based affiliate, iAqua Distribution LLC, asserting the apparatus claims of two of Cayago's patents on electric motor-driven watercraft vehicles. But that case, assigned to Judge Williams, was quickly settled by the parties in a stipulated dismissal before any Answer was filed.

原告卡亚戈科技有限责任公司（Cayago Tec, GmbH）和卡亚戈美洲公司（Cayago Americas, Inc.）（合称 “卡亚戈”）曾于2019年在同一地区对被告位于佛罗里达州的关联公司iAqua分销有限责任公司（iAqua Distribution LLC）提起诉讼，主张卡亚戈两项关于电动摩托艇装置的专利权利要求。但这起案件被分配给威廉姆斯法官后，双方在提交答辩状前就通过约定撤诉的方式迅速达成和解。

In Cayago's subsequent 2022 lawsuit, it added a third watercraft-related patent and directed many of its infringement allegations towards a new set of accused instrumentalities, "the SeaDart line of products," but without identifying any specific model number or attaching to the Complaint any exemplary claim charts mapping any product to the patent claim(s). Early in the case, Judge Smith granted Cayago's motion for alternative service (as judges in the Southern District of Florida frequently do against defendants in certain jurisdictions), thereby permitting Cayago to successfully serve its Complaint on iAqua in Hong Kong by email. Subsequently, iAqua attempted informal communications with the court, but did not otherwise file an Answer or move to dismiss the case before the response deadline. With iAqua having defaulted, Cayago next moved the court for a default judgment order and injunctive relief.

在卡亚戈随后于2022年提起的诉讼中，它增加了第三项与船只相关的专利，并将许多侵权指控指向一组新的被指控工具，即“SeaDart系列产品”，但没有指明任何具体型号，也未在起诉书中附上任何示例权利要求图表，以说明哪些产品侵犯了专利权利要求。在案件初期，史密斯法官批准了卡亚戈的替代送达动议（就像佛罗里达州南区的法官经常对某些司法管辖区的被告所做的那样），从而允许卡亚戈通过电子邮件成功地将起诉书送达位于香港的iAqua公司。随后，iAqua试图与法院进行非正式沟通，但在答辩截止日期前，既未提交答辩状，也未提出驳回案件的动议。由于iAqua缺席，卡亚戈随后向法院申请缺席判决令和禁令救济。

However, Judge Smith denied Cayago's first motion on administerial grounds (failure to include a certificate of service) and its second motion on substantive grounds and further dismissed Cayago's case altogether. In denying Cayago of its win, Judge Smith found the Complaint defective on its face due to its overuse of allegations made "upon information and belief" (rather than by factual support) and the legal claims grouped in the manner of an improper "shotgun pleading" (failing to separate direct, induced, and contributory infringement theories into individually distinct Counts), all of which warranted dismissal.

然而，史密斯法官以程序理由（未附上送达证明）驳回了卡亚戈的第一次动议，又以实体理由驳回了其第二次动议，并最终完全驳回了卡亚戈的诉讼请求。在驳回卡亚戈胜诉诉求时，史密斯法官认为，起诉书表面上存在缺陷，因其过度使用“基于所掌握的信息和推测”（而非事实依据）的指控，而且法律诉求采用了不当的“笼统起诉” 方式（未将直接侵权、间接侵权和共同侵权理论分别归入不同的诉讼请求），这些都构成了驳回诉讼的理由。

Although the controlling Iqbal-Twombly pleading standard does not require detailed factual allegations at the pleading stage (see 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), here, Judge Smith noted the lack of specific facts alleged in Cayago's complaint regarding iAqua's purported infringement and, problematically, the "bulk" of the allegations therein were either made "upon information and belief" or merely legal conclusions.

尽管具有指导性的Iqbal-Twombly起诉标准在起诉阶段并不要求详细的事实指控（见美国最高法院第556卷第662页、第678页（2009年）以及第550卷第544页、第555页（2007年）），但在此案中，史密斯法官指出，卡亚戈的起诉书缺乏关于iAqua所谓侵权行为的具体事实。而且问题在于，起诉书中“大部分”指控要么是 “基于所掌握的信息和推测”提出的，要么仅仅是法律结论。

While allegations that heavily rely "upon information and belief" are commonplace—with the expectation that more details will be uncovered through fact and expert discovery—plaintiffs must nevertheless ensure their Complaint adequately places the alleged infringer(s) on notice of how and by whom the purported infringement is carried out and by which accused product(s). To meet this standard, plaintiffs should thoroughly investigate their claims and collect evidence on how specific product models operate; explain how the observed operations practice the claim elements of the patent claims; and present the discrete theories of who is infringing and how it occurs in separately numbered Counts in the Complaint. The facts proffered to plausibly support one's infringement allegations should be robust enough to survive a potential motion to dismiss, even if the defendant never files such a motion or never even enters a notice of appearance in the case.

虽然大量依赖“基于所掌握的信息和推测”的指控很常见——人们期望通过事实调查和专家取证能发现更多细节，但原告仍必须确保其起诉书能充分告知被指控的侵权方，所谓的侵权行为是如何实施的、由谁实施的，以及涉及哪些被指控产品。为达到这一标准，原告应彻底调查其诉求，并收集有关特定产品型号运作方式的证据；解释所观察到的运作方式如何涉及专利权利要求中的要素；并在起诉书中以单独编号的诉讼请求分别阐述谁在侵权以及侵权是如何发生的不同理论。即使被告从未提出驳回诉讼的动议，甚至从未提交出庭通知，为使侵权指控看似合理而提供的事实也应足够充分，以经受住潜在的驳回动议。