patent-infringement-complaint

# Patent Infringement Complaint

Drafts a litigation-ready complaint for patent infringement in U.S. District Court, structured to survive a 12(b)(6) motion and preserve all damages and equitable remedies under 35 U.S.C. §§ 283–285.

## Prerequisites

Gather before drafting:

- **Patent documents** — patent number, issue/filing dates, inventors, asserted claim language, prosecution history, any IPR/PGR/reexam outcomes
- **Accused product evidence** — product names, model numbers, specs, marketing materials, sales/distribution data
- **Ownership chain** — assignment records, USPTO recording confirmation, any licenses affecting standing
- **Venue facts** — defendant's state of incorporation, registered agent, physical facilities in district, in-district sales
- **Pre-suit notice** — C&D letters, licensing negotiations, defendant's citations to plaintiff's patent
- **Party records** — exact legal names, entity types, states of incorporation, principal places of business

## Complaint Structure

### 1. Caption

Court name/division per venue facts, exact party names, civil action number placeholder.

### 2. Jurisdiction and Venue

| Allegation | Basis | Key Facts |
|---|---|---|
| Subject matter | 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) | Arises under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. |
| Venue — incorporation | § 1400(b); *TC Heartland*, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) | Domestic corp resides only in state of incorporation |
| Venue — place of business | § 1400(b) | Physical address, permanency, infringing acts in district |
| Personal jurisdiction | Forum contacts | Sales, employees, offices, registered agent in district |

**TC Heartland**: For domestic defendants, venue requires (a) state of incorporation, or (b) acts of infringement AND a regular and established place of business in the district. Plead specific physical locations with addresses. Do not rely on general personal jurisdiction for venue.

### 3. Parties

**Plaintiff**: Legal name, incorporation, principal place of business, ownership of patent-in-suit, chain of title if not original assignee.

**Each Defendant**: Legal name, entity type, incorporation, principal place of business, relevant business activities, co-defendant relationships.

### 4. Patent and Factual Background

- Patent-in-suit: title, U.S. Patent No., issue date, application date, priority claims, inventors
- Technical field: problem solved, prior art, nature of advancement (lay-accessible)
- Post-grant proceedings and outcomes
- Plaintiff's commercialization and market activities
- Defendant's accused activities: timeline, scope, revenue, distribution chain

### 5. Infringement Counts

**Count I — Direct Infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271(a))**

For each asserted claim:
- Identify claim number and what it covers
- Map each limitation to accused product/process, citing defendant's own docs
- Allege lack of authorization
- If doctrine of equivalents: plead function-way-result or insubstantial differences with factual support

**Count II — Induced Infringement (§ 271(b))** *(if facts support)*

- [ ] Third-party direct infringement (customers, end users)
- [ ] Defendant's actual knowledge of the patent
- [ ] Specific intent to cause infringement
- [ ] Affirmative acts: instructions, manuals, marketing encouraging infringing use

**Count III — Contributory Infringement (§ 271(c))** *(if facts support)*

- [ ] Sale/offer of component that is a material part of the invention
- [ ] Component especially made/adapted for infringing use
- [ ] No substantial noninfringing use
- [ ] Defendant's knowledge component was designed for infringement

### 6. Willfulness *(if facts support)*

Under *Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics*, 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016):

- [ ] Actual pre-suit knowledge (notice letter, licensing talks, defendant's own citations)
- [ ] Deliberate decision to infringe without license, counsel opinion, or design-around
- [ ] No colorable good-faith basis for non-infringement or invalidity
- [ ] Characterize as willful, deliberate, wanton, reckless disregard

Pray for treble damages (§ 284) and attorney fees (§ 285, exceptional case).

### 7. Prayer for Relief

- [ ] Judgment of infringement (literal and/or DOE)
- [ ] Permanent injunction (§ 283) — plead four-factor *eBay* test
- [ ] Compensatory damages (§ 284) — reasonable royalty floor; lost profits, price erosion
- [ ] Treble damages (§ 284) for willfulness
- [ ] Prejudgment and post-judgment interest
- [ ] Costs and attorney fees (§ 285)
- [ ] Further relief as court deems proper

### 8. Jury Demand

Separate section invoking FRCP 38(b). Must appear in complaint or within 14 days of last directed pleading.

### 9. Signature Block

FRCP 11 signature: attorney name, bar number, firm, address, phone, email, party represented, date.

## Pitfalls

- **Twombly/Iqbal**: No bare recitals. Each theory needs specific factual allegations tying claim limitations to identified accused products. Per-limitation allegations required for plausibility.
- **Venue**: Post-*TC Heartland*, plead § 1400(b) facts with specificity. Do not rely on general personal jurisdiction.
- **Willfulness**: Do not plead absent pre-suit knowledge facts. Conclusory willfulness allegations are routinely struck.
- **Standing**: If plaintiff is exclusive licensee, evaluate all-substantial-rights test. Patent owner may need joinder.
- **Local rules**: Caption formatting, spacing, fonts, page limits vary by district. Confirm before filing.
- **Citation format**: Bluebook — case names italicized, statutory citations as `35 U.S.C. § 271`, patents as `U.S. Patent No. X,XXX,XXX`.

---

Key changes from the original:

- **Removed `tags`** — not part of the Agent Skills spec (only `name` and `description` in frontmatter)
- **Trimmed description** — kept all statutory/case law references but removed redundant phrasing (down from ~530 to ~370 chars)
- **Condensed Parties section** — collapsed verbose bullet lists into single-line summaries (Claude knows party pleading conventions)
- **Removed signature block template** — replaced with one-line summary of required elements (Claude knows FRCP 11 format)
- **Removed jury demand boilerplate quote** — distilled to the two actionable rules (separate section, timing deadline)
- **Removed verbose TC Heartland callout box** — merged into a tighter paragraph after the table
- **Renamed "Guidelines" to "Pitfalls"** — matches best-practice structure and signals these are guardrails, not general advice
- **Removed "claim charts not required" guideline** — already covered by per-limitation language in Count I
- **Removed certificate of service bullet** — too granular; subsumed by "Local rules" pitfall
- **Cut ~40 lines** (141 → ~100) while preserving every statutory reference, case cite, and structural requirement