Brandywine Commun. Tech, LLC v. Casio Computer Co. Ltd.

To state a valid claim for contributory infringement, a plaintiff must plead facts suggesting the defendant both knew of the existence of the relevant patent at the time of the infringement, and that the product has no substantial non-infringing uses.

Opinion (Honeywell): Brandywine, a patent holding company, filed suit against several technology companies alleging infringement of its ‘922 patent. That suit was severed, and Casio moved for summary judgment on all claims. First, the district court addressed Brandywine’s claim for induced infringement. Because Brandywine failed to plead facts suggesting that Casio knew of the existence of the patent prior to the filing of the suit, the district court granted Casio’s motion for summary judgment on the claim for induced infringement. Next, the district court considered Brandywine’s claim for contributory infringement. Brandywine alleged that Casio’s cellular telephone products offered no substantial non-infringing uses, a claim that the district court found difficult to believe. This fact, combined with the failure to allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent, supported the district court’s decision to grant Casio’s motion for summary judgment on the question of contributory infringement. Each of Brandywine’s other claims were similarly found insufficient.