To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because the complaint alleged knowledge of the asserted patents solely based on averments in prior original and amended complaints in the same lawsuit.
ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., No. 19-cv-01687, ECF 57. In so doing, Judge Connolly reaffirmed the majority position among divided U.S. District Courts, that a complaint asserting patent infringement cannot itself establish knowledge of an asserted patent sufficient to support a claim for indirect or willful patent infringement.
Application Delivery Network Market: Demand, Overview, Price, Key Findings, Future Insights, Market Revenue and Threat Forecast by 2027
so-co-it.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from so-co-it.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Data Center Backup and Recovery Software Market to grow by USD 5 07 billion|9 91% Year-Over-Year Growth in 2021
yahoo.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from yahoo.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Advertisement
District of Delaware Recites Policy Rationale for Dismissing Willful and Indirect Infringement Claims for Failure to Plead Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement Monday, April 5, 2021
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because the complaint alleged knowledge of the asserted patents solely based on averments in prior original and amended complaints in the same lawsuit.
ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., No. 19-cv-01687, ECF 57. In so doing, Judge Connolly reaffirmed the majority position among divided U.S. District Courts, that a complaint asserting patent infringement cannot itself establish knowledge of an asserted patent sufficient to support a claim for indirect or willful patent infringement.