"The Court found that Twombly's complaint had not provided enough facts for the court to find it plausible that the companies had engaged in a conspiracy; instead, the complaint provided factual bases for parallel conduct—not enough under the Court's new interpretation of the Sherman Act—and merely stated that an agreement had taken place, with no details to support that allegation."

engaged in a conspiracy; instead, the complaint provided factual bases for parallel conduct

This does not seem to me to be under the same context when making a complaint in a patent case.

IMO, Looking for conspiracy between multiple infringers does not seem to be the issue of an infringement complaint.

An infringement complaint will more point to an initial infringer passing off infringement to ignorant (unknowingly) retailers...etc. with that, there is no "parallel conduct"

e.Digital is not, IMO, spending much time hunting for "conspiracy" "parallel conduct" with that, is the context the same?

Whatever, Judge Tiger has to weigh something with some kind of logic, that is focused on bridging language between Fed. R. Civ. P....e.g "Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)" vs. "Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"

FWIW

doni