In recent years, the Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly required more than "notice" pleading. But, under Rule 84, the forms in the appendix are deemed sufficient. Form 18 requires very little to plead direct infringement. Although the Federal Circuit has in a couple of cases limited the applicability of that form, e.g., R+L Carriers, Inc. v. DriverTech LLC, 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Form 18 controls over Iqbal and Twombly for direct infringement, but not for indirect infringement) and K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 12-1425 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2013)( any conflict between Iqbal and Twombly and Form 18 hould be resolved in favor of Form 18 for direct infringement), but some say more robust pleading would reduce marginal lawsuits.
Those folks may soon have their way. The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure report at around page 275 of this report wants to abrogate Rule 84, and so eliminate the imprimatur given the forms.
Granted, Rule 11 and prreliminary infringement contentions and so on eliminate the practical scope of Form 18, but this may be a good thing. Thoughts?