is required to set forth the facts underlying and demonstrating the existence of a cause of action. Conclusive statements are insufficient. See 5 WRight & Miller, Federal Practioe & Procedure: CIV.2d § 1218 (1990). To state a claim for patent infringement the plaintiff must allege that a person (1) without authority, (2) makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, or imports any patented invention within the United States, (3) during the term of the patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2000); see also Advanced, Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. SciMed Life Sys., Inc., 989 F.Supp. 1237, 1249 (N.D.Cal.1997); Beery v. Hitachi Home Elect., 157 F.R.D. 477, 480 (C.D.Cal.1993). A patent owner need only plead facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice. See Phonometrics, Inc., 203 F.3d. at 794 (<HOLDING>). LGE’s Amended Complaint sets forth facts
recognizing that in patent infringement eases a finding of noninfringement prevents a court from reaching an affirmative defense asserting the patents invalidity because the validity issue becomes immaterial to the disposition of the case and that any determination of the patents validity by the district court in such a case should be vacated holding that  1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims holding that when two patents issued from continuationinpart appliea tions derived from one original application the prosecution history of a claim limitation in the first patent to issue was properly applied to the same claim limitation in the second patent to issue holding that the complaint placed the defendant on notice when it alleged ownership of the asserted patent named the individual defendants cited the patents that are allegedly infringed described the means by which the defendants allegedly infringed the patents and pointed to specific sections of the patent law invoked holding that applicable federal patent law made patents personal and unassignable without consent of the licensor