Addiction & Detoxification Inst. v. George

In order for a Plaintiff to properly file a complaint regarding patent infringement, the Defendant must have actual knowledge of the infringement before the complaint is filed.

Opinion (O’Meara): Plaintiff Addiction & Detoxification Institute (“ADI”) is a drug addiction treatment research facility. Defendant MDS Drug Detox Clinic (“George”) is an addiction rehabilitation center owned by Julia Aharonov and Joseph A. George. ADI alleged that George infringed upon its’ ‘411 Patent. George motioned to dismiss this claim on the grounds that ADI did not present sufficient facts that George was aware of the ‘411 Patent before the case was filed. However, ADI is unable to claim that George directly infringed upon its patent because ADI did not indicate that it notified George of the infringement in its’ complaint before filing suit. “Form 18 requires a complaint to contain, among other things, "a statement that the plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement." Additionally, ADI is unable to claim that George indirectly infringed upon its patent because ADI failed to show that George intended to infringe upon its patent. Generally, “In order to plead that a party has willfully infringed a patent, the party must have had knowledge of the patent; and post-filing knowledge is not sufficient to support such a claim.” ADI is also unable to allege that George willfully infringed its’ patent because “the complaint does not recite specific facts explaining if and when the defendants had knowledge of the '411 Patent.” Therefore, the motion to dismiss these claims by the Defendant is GRANTED.