Icontrol Networks, Inc. v. Zonoff Inc., C.A. No. 15-1109 - GMS, June 6, 2016.

Sleet, J. Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement is denied.

Defendant claims allegations of willful infringement fail to state a claim in that specific facts are lacking.  Plaintiff’s allegations upon “information and belief” are found to be sufficient. The complaint alleges facts supporting a plausible inference that defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit and notes the further information demanded by defendant lies uniquely within the control of defendant.  Defendant’s argument to dismiss a claim for pre-suit damages is rejected, the notice requirements by section 287 being inapplicable to method patents. Finally, the court rules that plaintiff need not enumerate specific claims asserted in its allegations of indirect infringement at this stage of the litigation.  The details are to be determined through discovery. Delaware’s Default Standard contains a procedural mechanism for identifying specific asserted claims and the court sees no need to depart from that process.