Speculative Allegations Regarding Operation of Accused Website Doom Patent Infringement Complaint

Mar 16, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

The patent at issue claimed a system for selling certain types of customer data using a particular type of software. The plaintiff alleged “upon information and belief” that the defendant had partnered with one or more data sellers, had set up a website that used software designed by the one or more data sellers, and that the software infringed the patent.

The court ruled that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for patent infringement. The court explained that the plaintiff had relied upon a series of assumptions that amounted to alleging the defendant infringed the patent because the website functioned in a way that could be achieved using the software of the patent.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the complaint was sufficient, finding that the plaintiff had essentially argued that a “form complaint” was all that was needed. The court explained that such complaints were no longer sufficient because Rule 84, the authorizing rule, had been abrogated. The court further explained that a plaintiff need not plead facts showing that every claim limitation is met, but must show how the defendant plausibly infringes the patent by alleging facts that connect the conduct to the claim limitations. Because the plaintiff had only speculated as to how the defendant’s website operated to give access to customer data, and that the method of accessing the data was a critical part of the patent’s claims, the complaint was fatally defective. The court explained that the “sheer possibility” of infringement was insufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss.

The court concluded by recognizing the problem faced by a plaintiff who lacked insight into the defendant’s operations, and who would find it difficult to gain insight without civil discovery. But the court rejected the notion that a case could proceed on assumptions and allegations of similarity between products. Rather, the complaint must allege facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the claim for relief. Therefore, the plaintiff must determine first whether it has a claim.

Practice tip:

The pleading standards place the burden on the plaintiff to investigate and make factual allegations that plausibly, not possibly, show a defendant infringes the patent. A complaint that makes an infringement allegation founded on a series of assumptions may be highly susceptible to dismissal under the federal rules governing the sufficiency pleadings.

DataWidget, LLC v. Rocket Science Group LLC, 20-cv-02961 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2022)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

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

© 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.