Institution of IPR Does Not Preclude Intent Necessary to Plead Induced Infringement

The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended claims for induced infringement for failing to sufficiently plead intent. "[Defendant] . . . suggests, based on the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013), that it cannot possess the requisite intent to induce infringement because it has a good faith basis for believing the patents-in-suit are invalid. This purported good faith basis arose after [plaintiff] filed its First Amended Complaint, when the [PTAB] granted [a former defendant's] petition for inter partes review of six of the patents-in-suit, based on a reasonable likelihood that [the former defendant] would prevail in showing some of the claims at issue are unpatentable. . . . There is no basis to expand Commil into a pleading requirement. More importantly, the public IPR documents to which [defendant] refers do not, taken in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], require a finding that [plaintiff's] pleading of intent is deficient and merits dismissal of the induced infringement claim."

Clouding IP, LLC v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., 1-12-cv-00675 (DED February 6, 2014, Order) (Stark, J.)