Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Sipco, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., No. 16-830-RGA (D. Del. Jun. 21, 2017). Judge Andrews previously granted defendants’ first motion to dismiss finding that the complaint made “no attempt to connect anything in the patent claims to anything about any of the accused products.” Id. at 1. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint added allegations describing the accused product “in some detail,” but Judge Andrews noted that the description would only be understandable “(if at all) by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Judge Andrews noted that “it is incumbent on a plaintiff to provide a readable document that plausibly alleges infringement.” Id. at 3 (citing Twombly). In the Court’s view, “providing  a copy of the patent and a description of the product, at least in this case, [did] not meet the required standard.” Id. Judge Andrews noted that the Court was “disappointed that Plaintiffs did not take [the Court’s] last order a little more seriously,” but ultimately gave Plaintiffs one more opportunity to amend their complaint to “make plausible allegations of infringement.” Id. at 4.