Pre-Suit Willfulness Sufficiently Pleaded Where Detailed Facts Support Defendant’s Involvement in Opposition Proceeding of Related Patent and Participation in Relevant Industry

November 17,2025

Reading Time : 2 min

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

The patent owner accused the defendant’s blood tests of infringing its patented methods directed to obtaining genomic copy number information from a sample of genomic material. According to the patent owner, the patented methods were an improvement in the field of early cancer detection. The patent owner further alleged that the defendant’s pre-suit infringement was willful, making several allegations upon information and belief. In particular, the patent owner alleged that the defendant would have become aware of the asserted patents by participating in the early cancer detection industry and while researching the patentability of its own patents and developing its blood tests. The patent owner also alleged that the defendant acquired knowledge of the asserted patents through its prior involvement in a European Patent opposition proceeding for a related patent having the same title and similar claims.

In response, the defendant moved to dismiss pre-suit willfulness from the complaint. The defendant argued that the patent owner’s allegations regarding industry participation and research for its own patents were too conclusory to support a claim of willful infringement. The defendant also argued that involvement in the foreign opposition proceeding only supports knowledge of that related patent, not the asserted patents. 

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments, finding sufficient factual allegations to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. In particular, the patent owner’s allegations were accompanied by exhibits and additional information concerning the European patent claims and the defendant’s interest in the foreign proceeding, the defendant’s patents in the relevant technology, the specialized knowledge in the field, and how the accused blood tests allegedly practice the patented methods. The court accepted that if each of the allegations had been made in isolation then there would have been insufficient support for pre-suit willfulness. But the court explained that taken together, the numerous allegations and factual support created a plausible basis to infer that the defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents and notice of its potential infringement. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willfulness.

Practice Tip: General allegations that a defendant had pre-suit knowledge of asserted patents based on participation in the relevant industry or awareness of related patents have been found to be too speculative to support a claim for willful infringement. Thus, at the pleading stage, a patent owner seeking enhanced damages for pre-suit willful infringement should provide detailed factual support for the defendant’s knowledge of the asserted patents and that the defendant knew or should have known that it was infringing the asserted patents. The factual support may include exhibits and information describing defendant’s activities in the relevant industry; similarities between the asserted patents, the defendant’s own patents, and any related patents defendant was aware of; facts about the defendant’s involvement in any proceeding challenging a related patent; and information detailing how the defendant’s accused product practices the claims of the asserted patents.

Cold Spring Harbor Lab’y v. Guardant Health, Inc., Court No. 1:25-CV-00263-JCG, 2025 WL 2898942 (D. Del. Oct. 10, 2025)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 1, 2025

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead, the court determined that the appropriate date to use for the hypothetical negotiation is the launch date.

...

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.