Pleading patent cases

In 2009, Dabney Carr wrote:

Exergen echoes the Supreme Court’s decisions in Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) that under Fed.R.Civ. P. 8, a pleading offering “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of a cause of action will not do.” As the Court stated in Iqbal, “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Thus, a plaintiff must make “well-pleaded factual allegations” that “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
Exergen takes Iqbal and Twombly a step further, requiring allegation of facts with a high degree of specificity and detail, and Exergen may presage stricter pleading requirements for other types of patent claims and defenses.

In 2012, we have an article titled
Impact Of The Supreme Court’s Twombly & Iqbal Rulings On Patent Litigation, which concludes

The continuing validity of Form 18 deserves consideration by the relevant rulemaking bodies and, absent changes in the form, courts may need to confront in more rigorous fashion the question of whether Rule 84 (which gives force to Form 18) can trump a Supreme Court decision that in most cases would render the form insufficient.