Sufficiently Pleading Claims of Indirect and Willful Infringement: Alleging that Defendant Generally Monitored Competitors’ Activity Is Not Good Enough

Jul 2, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC initially filed a complaint against Defendant Intel Corporation, alleging, inter alia, indirect infringement of patents relating to computer chip technology, and that Defendant’s infringement was willful. The district court dismissed those claims because the complaint failed to plausibly allege knowledge or willful blindness of the alleged infringement. Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to plead additional facts and reintroduce the dismissed claims. Defendant opposed the motion as to claims of pre-suit indirect and willful infringement.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend sought to add allegations that Defendant regularly monitors its competitors’ activities, which alerts it to competitor patents potentially related to its products. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant engaged the prior owner of the two asserted patents about acquiring other patents in its portfolio. Lastly, Plaintiff sought to add allegations that Defendant has a general policy prohibiting its employees from reading patents held by other companies and individuals so that Defendant can avoid learning that its actions are infringing.

A claim of indirect infringement requires that the accused infringer know of both the patent in suit and its infringement of that patent. To merit an enhanced damage award, infringing conduct must rise to the level of egregious misconduct—above the level of mere intentional or knowing infringement. However, the court held that, at the pleading stage, an enhanced damages claim based on willful infringement must only plausibly allege that the accused infringer (1) had knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, the existence of the asserted patent and (2) had knowledge of, or was willfully blind to the fact, that the accused infringer’s conduct constituted, induced or contributed to infringement of the asserted patent.

Nonetheless, the court denied Patent Owner’s motion to amend with respect to claims of pre-suit indirect infringement and enhanced damages as futile. The court explained that while Plaintiff plausibly alleged Defendant had knowledge of the two patents, allegations of Defendant’s “general polic[ies] with respect to thousands of patents in a field of technology” were insufficient to support the inference that Defendant knew, or was willfully blind to the fact, that it had infringed the specific patents in suit.

Practice Tip: To survive a motion to dismiss, claims of indirect infringement or enhanced damages must plausibly allege that the accused infringer knew that (1) the asserted patents exist and (2) its actions constituted, induced or contributed to infringement of the asserted patents. Allegations of generalized business practices that may have alerted the accused infringer to the existence and infringement of patents must be tied to the asserted patents to support a pleading that the defendant knew, or was willfully blind to, its infringement.

VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 18-0966-CFC (D. Del. June 26, 2020) (D.I. 626)

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.