Neither the Federal Circuit nor the Supreme Court has addressed the issue.CompareProxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 2012 WL 1835680, at *7 (C.D. Cal May 16, 2012) (requiring pre-suit knowledge for induced infringement claims), Brandywine Commc'ns Techs., LLC, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. , 904 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1267 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2012) (same), Select Retrieval, LLC v. Bulbs.com Inc. , 2012 WL 6045942, at *5–6 (D. Mass. Dec. 4, 2012) (same), Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC v. Arthrex, Inc. , 2013 WL 12149301, at *2–*3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2013) (same), Wi-Lan USA, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd. , 2013 WL 12092486, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 7, 2013) (same), Black Hills Media, LLC v. Pioneer Corp. , 2013 WL 8540141, at *2-3, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187917, at *7–*8 (C.D. Cal Sept. 24, 2013) (requiring pre-suit knowledge for willfulness claims), Solannex, Inc. v. MiaSole , 2011 WL 4021558, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011) (same), IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership , 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan 21, 2011) (same), Cap Co. Ltd. v. McAfee, Inc. , 2015 WL 3945875, at *2–*3 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) (same), and Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp. , 2020 WL 364136, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2020) (same) withGroupon Inc. v. MobGob LLC , 2011 WL 2111986, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011) (permitting induced infringement claims based on post-suit knowledge), Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc. , 2011 WL 3946581, at *4–*5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2011) (same), Intellect Wireless Inc. v. Sharp Corp. , 2012 WL 787051, at *11 (N.D. Ill. March 9, 2012) (same), Symantec Corp. v. Veeam Software Corp. , 2012 WL 1965832, at *4–*5 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) (same), EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc. , 2012 WL 4514138, at *11–*12 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012) (same), Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook Inc. , 950 F. Supp. 2d 876, 882 (E.D. Va. June 12, 2013) (same), Labyrinth Optical Techs., LLC v. Fujitsu Am., Inc. , 2013 WL 12126111, at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188873, at *13 (C.D. Cal Aug. 21, 2013

LML Holdings v. Pac. Coast Distrib., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75843, *11 (N.D.Cal. May 30, 2012); IpVenture v. Cellco Partnership, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5955, *7-9 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (dismissing claim for willful infringement where complaint provided "no facts to support the claim that defendants actually had knowledge of the issued patent."). This is because "[a] 'patent pending' notice gives one no knowledge whatsoever.... Filing an application is no guarantee any patent will issue and a very substantial percentage of applications never result in patents.

LML Holdings v. Pac. Coast Distrib., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75843, *11 (N.D.Cal. May 30, 2012); IpVenture v. Cellco Partnership, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5955, *7-9 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (dismissing claim for willful infringement where complaint provided "no facts to support the claim that defendants actually had knowledge of the issued patent."). This is because "[a] 'patent pending' notice gives one no knowledge whatsoever ... . Filing an application is no guarantee any patent will issue and a very substantial percentage of applications never result in patents.

The Federal Circuit has not determined whether Iqbal and Twombly apply to claims for willful infringement, but other decisions from this district have convincingly argued that they do. See FuzzySharp Techs. Inc. v. Nvidia Corp., No. 12-cv-06375-JST, 2013 WL 4766877, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2013); Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01079-SBA, 2012 WL 5940782, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012); IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, C 10-04755 JSW, 2011 WL 207978, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). The Court finds that these cases have adopted the right approach by applying to willful infringement the pleading standards that virtually every non-patent litigant has to live with.

Within the Northern District, to sufficiently plead a claim for willful infringement, a patentee "must make out the barest factual assertion of knowledge of an issued patent." IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, No. C 10-04755 JSW, 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan.21, 2011). In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that:

The complaint at least "must make out the barest factual assertion of knowledge of an issued patent." Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Express MD Solutions, LLC, 2012 WL 2803617, at *3 (N.D.Cal. July 10, 2012) (quoting IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). A "bare recitation of the required legal elements for willful infringement" is insufficient.

In this District, willful infringement requires a patentee to "make out the barest factual assertion of knowledge of an issued patent[.]" IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, No. C 10-04755 JSW, 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). The allegations must assert that the accused infringer had knowledge of the patent before the patent litigation began.

In this District, willful infringement requires a patentee to "make out the barest factual assertion of knowledge of an issued patent[.]" IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, No. C 10-04755 JSW, 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). The allegations must assert that the accused infringer had knowledge of the patent before the patent litigation began.

See Docket No. 42 at ¶¶ 21, 33-34. See, e.g., Solannex, Inc. v. MiaSole, Case No. 11-cv-00171, 2011 WL 4021558, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011); IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, Case No. 10-cv-04755, 2011 WL 207978, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). LML Holdings, Inc. v. Pac. Coast Distrib. Inc., Case No. 11-cv-06173, 2012 WL 1965878, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012).

Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Express MD Solutions, LLC, Case No. 12-0068, 2012 WL 2803617, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) (citing IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, Case No. 10-4755, 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011)).