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

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

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.