By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC v. Brightcove Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 19-1190-CFC (D.Del. July 20, 2020), the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s fifteen (15) count complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s complaint included alleged claims of direct infringement and indirect infringement with respect to the fifteen (15) patents-in-suit and a claim for enhanced damages. Each count alleged infringement of one of the fifteen (15) asserted patents. Id. at *2.
With respect to the claims for direct infringement, Defendants argued that every count failed to plausibly allege infringement of the asserted patents because Plaintiff “fail[ed] to allege factual allegations addressing every element of each asserted claim.” Id. at *3. The Court disagreed. Id. The Court explained that “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing that each element of an asserted claim is met. Rather, a plaintiff need only ‘place the potential infringer on notice of what activity is being accused of infringement’ to state a claim for direct infringement.” Id. at *3-4. The Court found that Plaintiff did plausibly plead direct infringement because the allegations in the Complaint give Defendants fair notice of how they may directly infringe the asserted products: (1) Plaintiff identifies Defendants products accused of infringing each of the asserted patents; (2) identifies at least one claim of each asserted patent that the identified accused products infringe; and (3) describes how those products infringe the identified claims. Id.
With respect to the induced infringement claim, the Court found that Plaintiff did not state a claim for induced infringement because it did not plausibly plead that Defendants knew that their products infringe the asserted patents. Id. at *6. The Court explained that “the [C]omplaint itself cannot be the source of the knowledge required to sustain claims of induced infringement.” Id. Thus, because Plaintiff did not plausibly allege knowledge of infringement, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the induced infringement claim. Id. at *7.
Similarly, because a claim for enhanced damages based on willful infringement requires a Plaintiff to plausibly allege facts establishing Defendants’ knowledge of infringement, the Court also granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for enhanced damages. Id. at *12-13. In other words, in order to state a claim for enhanced damages based on willful infringement, Plaintiff had to plausibly allege facts establishing that Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patents and that Defendants had knowledge of their infringement of the asserted patents. Id.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.