In Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., C.A. No. 13-1668-LPS and its related actions (D. Del. Sept. 24, 2014), Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark denied defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to willful infringement and lack of standing, but denied the latter without prejudice.
As to willfulness (directed to only one of the related defendants), plaintiffs alleged that this defendant had knowledge of certain patents-in-suit once it brought these patents to the attention of the examiner during the prosecution of its own patents. Id. at 4. Furthermore, the complaint alleged willful blindness: that the defendant ignored the risks of patent infringement as a matter of corporate policy as it had no policy in place to obtain rights from patent holders. Id. at 5. The Court found that these allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal. Id.
As to standing, the Court denied this motion as “[t]he parties have not provided the Court with a copy of the full agreement transferring patent rights to [plaintiffs].” Id. at 6. In light of the Court’s recent opinion in Clouding IP, LLC v. Google Inc., it highlighted “the importance of examining the full agreement when assessing whether a plaintiff has been transferred ‘all substantial rights’ in a patent.” Id. at 5-6. Therefore the Court denied the motion without prejudice; defendants could move again if the parties provided the “complete assignment agreements and amendments.” Id. at 6.