Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

PLEADING PATENT INFRINGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on January 11, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Serious SecretaryHow do you plead patent infringement in the United States?  Can you survive a motion to dismiss if the defendant challenges the sufficiency of your complaint?  What should you do?

Let’s say your client has a United States patent that is believed to be infringed by another party.  You do not rely on the client solely for facts, but conduct your own investigation to meet a pre-filing due diligence.  You review the patent, prior art, and file history for claim construction.  You also review the accused infringing device both independently and with your client.  You prepare claim charts for all claims of the patent and apply elements of the claims to the accused infringing device in the claim chart.  You may even obtain an opinion of counsel that is reasonable, comprehensive, and competent such that a reasonable litigant could believe that an infringement claim could succeed based on the opinion.  This pre-filing due diligence will usually meet your obligation under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

After conducting your pre-filing due diligence, you draft a complaint for patent infringement. In the complaint, you plead the patent number, that the plaintiff owns the patent, that the defendant infringes the patent by selling products, and that notice was given to the defendant of the infringement, and request an injunction and damages.  You file the complaint for a civil action in federal court and the defendant files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  What happened?  Could you have done something to prevent this?  The answer is YES!

Today, there is a higher standard for pleading patent infringement in a civil action in the federal courts of the United States.  The law requires that the patent owner must set forth factual allegations that make infringement of the patent plausible and entitled to relief.  The complaint should not provide threadbare recitals of elements supported by merely conclusionary statements.  Enough underlying facts should be alleged to confirm the elements of a cause of action for patent infringement.  Otherwise, the defendant may move to dismiss the complaint for a failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

What if the patent has method claims?  For direct infringement of a method claim, the complaint must allege that the steps are performed by or attributable to a single party.  You must have proof that the defendant performs each step of the method.  Although the plaintiff may meet its Rule 11 obligations with good faith, the plaintiff may be unable to make plausible inference of patent infringement.  If the information is not readily accessible, information may be generally described in the complaint along with an explanation of why such undisclosed information was not readily accessible and any efforts made by such party to access information.  For example, did the plaintiff send a letter to the defendant requesting the information?

What do you do in cases where there is no single party that performs all of the method steps?  For joint infringement of a claimed method, multiple actors are involved in practicing the claimed steps.  The patent owner must show that the acts of one party are attributable to the other party such that a single party is responsible for patent infringement in the United States.  The party will be responsible for the other party’s performance of method steps in two circumstances.  The first circumstance is where that entity directs or controls others’ performance of the method steps.  The second circumstance is where the actors form a joint enterprise.  Therefore, in your complaint, you must set fourth any factual allegations that one party directed or controlled the other party.

As for practice tips, allegations of direct infringement of a patent require elements beyond the typical.  You should plead counts and facts sufficient to allow a reasonable inference.  For example, plead specific claims asserted and specific products by name.  In addition, try to plead who, what, where, when, and why for sufficiency.  If you find that your opponent has not done that, file a motion for Rule 12(b) prior to filing an answer to the complaint.  In particular, you may want to file such a motion in instances where the plaintiff may be unable to amend its complaint.  However, if a motion for Rule 12(b) is filed against you, consider amending your complaint before arguing the motion.  Otherwise, if you loose on your motion, the judge may dismiss your complaint.

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo