Law360, New York (July 8, 2016, 11:55 AM ET) -- Alexander Chen..."as of Dec. 1, 2015, several district courts have been presented with a novel issue as to the proper application of the plausibility requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a),"

"can't read whole article which mentions edigital."

wasntme...I see you're on top of it...Mr. Chen as well

The Demise Of Rule 84 And The Unleashing Of Twombly

==========================================

For others that may want to follow along....Just plug that heading on top of my previous considerations... LINK....and then read the following....

"As written, Form 18 provides only a bare outline of a patent infringement claim — it does not include, among other things, any allegations identifying any particular patent claim or any specific accused product, much less the allegedly infringing feature(s) of such a product. Despite Form 18’s relative lack of detail, until 2007 courts routinely held that the form met the so-called “notice pleading” standard of Rule 8(a)."

LINK

How will the e.Digital vs. iBaby judge rule? With a complete dismissal, or if needed, directed to comply with a 2nd amendement?

Complete Dismissal seems over kill for procedural issues.

doni