District Court: Knowledge of Infringement Cannot be Inferred From Non-Production of Opinion of Counsel Letter

January 24, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Caitlin E. Olwell, Rachel J. Elsby, Shivani Prakash

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

Plaintiff Kaneka Corporation accused defendants Design for Health, Inc., (DFH) and American River Nutrition, LLC, (ARN) of directly infringing its nutritional supplement patent, and accused ARN of inducing DHS’s infringement. The case proceeded to a bench trial where the court found that defendants directly infringed the two asserted patent claims, but refused to find inducement.

Inducement requires both knowledge of the asserted patent and knowledge of infringement. That is, a defendant must not only be aware of the patent, but also know that its actions constitute infringement (or be willfully blind to that fact). Here, there was direct and undisputed evidence that ARN’s Chief Medical Officer and half-owner, Dr. Tan, knew of the asserted patent. There was not, however, direct evidence that Dr. Tan knew ARN’s actions amounted to infringement.

Kaneka argued that circumstantial evidence supported a finding of inducement. Specifically, Kaneka asked the district court to infer from the lack of production that ARN’s opinion letter reached a negative conclusion on infringement, and as a result, Dr. Tan and ARN had knowledge of their infringement. The district court refused Kaneka’s invitation, pointing out that such an inference was prohibited by statute and Federal Circuit precedent. The district court noted that although Dr. Tan acknowledged in his testimony that he obtained an opinion of counsel letter, he was not asked about the contents of the letter, nor did he offer to disclose them. In fact, when asked if he came to a decision about whether ARN’s product infringed the patent, Dr. Tan testified that he could not answer the question because it was a legal question and he was not an attorney.

Kaneka also attempted to argue that Dr. Tan and the defendants deliberately avoided learning of their infringement, i.e., were willfully blind to the infringement. As support, Kaneka pointed again to ARN’s failure to produce the opinion letter. The district court rejected this argument as well, again noting that inference is barred by statute and precedent. The district court further noted that, if anything, by obtaining an opinion letter, Dr. Tan did not take steps to avoid learning about whether ARN infringed the patent.

Practice Tip: This case reaffirms the long-standing principal that courts cannot infer from the nonproduction of an opinion, that a party knew of its infringement. It also highlights the important role of discovery in cases involving claims of inducement. Plaintiffs asserting inducement must take care in discovery to identify specific evidence beyond mere knowledge of the patent to show inducement, and defendants must carefully consider whether to produce an opinion of counsel where one has been obtained.

Kaneka Corporation v. Designs For Health, Inc., et al., 1-21-cv-00209 (D. Del. Dec. 20, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.