Old timers remember RainDance Techs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33875 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016). After the appendix of forms was banished from the federal rules of civil procedure, Judge Andrews' opinion in Raindance was among the first in the nation to hold that complaints alleging infringement had to do more than simply list the patent and the product as in the old Form 18.
For a couple years it was the citation of choice in the district for motions to dismiss, with every defendant arguing that the complaint lacked sufficient detail relating their product to the asserted patent claims.
In the years since, the argument has been seen less and less with many patentees learning to draft complaints to comply with standard. Last week, brought the first time I've seen a successful motion in this regard in some time, with Judge Burke's decision in Olink Proteomics AB v. Alamar Biosciences, Inc. C.A. No. 21-1303-MN (D. Del. Jan 23, 2025) (Report and Recommendation).
The plaintiff there had accused the defendant of infringing a complex claim that took up about 1/2 a page of text. The defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that all of the relevant elements were met. Judge Burke agreed:
The Court agrees that the Complaint fails to plead that NULISA practices this limitation. Perhaps if Olink’s Complaint had clearly asserted infringement as to all of the remaining limitations in claim 1, then drawing all reasonable inferences in Olink’s favor, it would be plausible to come to a different conclusion. But as Alamar points out, the Complaint also does not do this. That is because the pleading does not assert (at least not in an understandable way) that NULISA practices steps (c) and (e) of claim 1—steps that seem key to the claimed process of detecting functional interactions between the molecules of interest.
While it is true that a plaintiff need not “plead infringement on an element-by-element basis, it is also true that the level of detail required in a case depends upon, inter alia, the complexity of the technology and the materiality of an element to practicing the asserted claim. Olink acknowledges that the technology at issue here is not simple. And the detection of functional interactions between molecules of interest is obviously material to the claim.
Id. at 19-20 (cleaned up).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
