No sure of the US approach on this,
It seems that a lot of what they're throwing in here in the motion to strike are defenses. They can't possibly succeed because of X (defense or reason). It's not that the plaintiff's allegations are absent or lacking elements, but rather they're presenting a defense, which is only valid in a trial format.
The motion for further information might have some success, but I don't see how this is any manner a baseless claim by TC which would warrant the motion to strike.
And an amending motion probably could get around many of the objections, so that might be needed, but this isn't going to make this case go away, or let Fusion market the JooJoo in the US.
Personal opinion, Arrington messed up somewhat, but he's still got enough of a bone to pick here that it should go to trial.