motion to amend complaint Archives

Off the mark: NPE licensees must comply with patent marking for pre-suit damages

Affirming dismissal of a patent infringement complaint and an award of attorneys’ fees, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a nonpracticing entity (NPE) seeking pre-suit damages cannot disregard its licensees’ obligations under the patent marking statute, and that a pattern of abusive litigation conduct supports an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 24-2226 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2026) (Moore, Lourie, Cunningham, JJ.)

VDPP, an NPE, sued an auto manufacturer for infringement of a patent directed to electrically controlled spectacles. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend as futile. Because VDPP sought pre-suit damages, it was required to plead compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), including compliance by its licensees.

VDPP had entered into 11 settlement agreements that included patent licenses, but its proposed amended complaint did not allege that any licensee had marked its products. Instead, VDPP relied on its status as an NPE and asserted that it had no products of its own to mark. VDPP appealed the district court’s dismissal and fee award.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. Although a patentee that does not make or sell patented products may not have products of its own to mark, its licensees remain subject to § 287’s marking requirements. The Court rejected VDPP’s attempt to distinguish licenses granted through settlement agreements, explaining that a settlement license is no different for marking purposes from any other patent license. The Court noted that all 11 settlement agreements were structured as licenses and that one expressly stated that the licensee had no obligation to mark. Because VDPP could not plausibly allege that it made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance by its licensees, the Court affirmed the denial of leave to amend as futile.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s exceptional case determination and fee award under § 285. The district court relied on several aspects of VDPP’s litigation conduct, including seeking future damages and injunctive relief on an expired patent, failing to disclose relevant settlement agreements despite being reminded of them, and advancing positions the district court characterized as frivolous.

The Federal Circuit rejected VDPP’s argument that conduct must independently satisfy Rule 11 before it may support an exceptional case finding. It also concluded that the district court properly considered VDPP’s broader pattern of filing patent infringement suits followed by low-value settlement demands, noting that such a pattern is relevant to an exceptional case determination where adequate evidence of an abusive litigation strategy is presented.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as to sanctions imposed on VDPP’s counsel for lack of jurisdiction. VDPP’s counsel’s notice of appeal listed only VDPP as the appellant, and the counsel’s name appeared only incidentally within a description of the orders being appealed. Corrected notices filed more than 90 days after entry of the orders came too late. The Court also rejected VDPP’s argument that it had standing to contest its own counsel’s [...]

Continue Reading

Not Just a Blip: Section 101 as Affirmative Defense

On appeal from a motion to dismiss based on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a district court appropriately analyzed certain claims as representative claims and that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and did not recite an inventive concept. Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) (Lourie, Bryson, Stark, JJ.)

Mobile Acuity sued Blippar for infringement of claims from two patents directed to software for accessing stored information with a captured image. Mobile Acuity’s operative second amended complaint asserted that Blippar infringed “at least Claims 9, 11, and 16” of one patent and “Claims 9, 11, and 16” of the other. Blippar asserted that claim 9 of each patent was “representative of the entire claim set in each respective Asserted Patent” and that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Blippar’s motion and subsequently denied Mobile Acuity’s motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file a third amended complaint.

Mobile Acuity appealed, asserting that the district court committed several errors, including the treatment of claim 9 in each asserted patent as a representative claim and the holding that the asserted patents were invalid as claiming ineligible subject matter.

Mobile Acuity first argued that the district court erred in holding that a challenge under § 101 is not an affirmative defense. The Federal Circuit agreed that an eligibility challenge on § 101 grounds is an affirmative defense but found that the district court simply misspoke when it stated during oral argument “[w]e are not talking about an affirmative defense.” However, the Federal Circuit concluded that the “error in word choice was harmless because the district court applied the correct legal standard for evaluating an affirmative defense at the motion to dismiss stage.”

In support of its denied motion to amend, Mobile Acuity argued that “the district court required it to ‘anticipate [the] defendant’s affirmative defense in its complaint.’” The Federal Circuit rebuffed this argument, concluding that the district court did not grant the motion to dismiss on the grounds that Mobile Acuity failed to address patentable subject matter in its complaints but correctly dismissed based on an affirmative defense that “clearly appears on the face of the pleading.” The Court stated that “as we have repeatedly recognized, it is possible and proper to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”

On the merits, the Federal Circuit first determined that the district court did not merely treat claim 9 of each of the asserted patents as representative of all claims. The Federal Circuit explained that “the court did more, separately analyzing all six claims Mobile Acuity specifically identified in the operative complaint,” as well as two additional claims. The Federal Circuit also agreed with the district court that the six claims were representative “of all claims of the two Asserted Patents.”

As to the merits of the motion to dismiss, [...]

Continue Reading