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 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.