Empire Technology Development LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc - Patent Infringement

IN THE U NITED STAT ES DIST RICT CO URT FOR THE DIS TRICT OF DEL AWARE EMPIRE TECHNO LOGY DEVELOP MENT LLC, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED MIC RO DEVICES, INC., Defendant. Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 - JCG OPINION AND ORDER [Granting in part a nd denying in part Defendant’s Motion fo r Judgment on the Pleadings.] Dated: February 26, 202 6 David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Nicole K. P edi, and Andrew M. Moshos, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, of W ilmington, D E; Christopher J. Gaspa r, Nathaniel T. Browand, Andrew Lichte nberg, Marina S. Marka rian, Hannah Juge, and Rachel Wol f, Milbank LLP, of New York, N. Y. Attorneys for Plaintiff Empire Technolog y Development L LC. Christine D. Ha ynes and Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., of W ilmington, DE; Ryan K. Yagura and Nic holas J. Whilt, O’Melv eny & Myers LLP, of Los Ange les, CA; Clarence Rowla nd, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, of San Francisco, CA; Laura B. Gore, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, of New York, N. Y. Attorneys for Defe ndant Advance d Micro Devices, Inc. Choe - Groves, Judge: Plaintiff E mpire Technology D evelopment L LC (“Plaintiff” or “Empire”) file d this case against De fendant Advanc ed Micro

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 2 Devices, Inc. (“Defendant” or “ Advanced Micro De vices”) alleging inf ringeme nt of U.S. Patent N umbers 9,367,370 (“’370 Patent”) and 9,671, 850 (“’850 Pat ent”) (collectively, “Asserted Pat ents”). Compl. Pate nt Infringement (“C ompl.”) (D.I. 1); see U.S. Patent Number 9,367,37 0 (“’370 Paten t”) (D.I. 1 - 1); U.S. Patent Number 9,671,850 (“ ’850 Patent”) (D.I. 1 - 1). Defendant filed A dvanced Micro De vices, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Fai lure to State a C laim. Advanced Mic ro Devices, Inc.’s M ot. J. Pleadings Failure State Claim (“Def.’s Mot.”) (D.I. 22); Advanced M icro Devices, Inc.’s Opening Br. Supp. Mot. J. Ple adings Failure Sta te Claim (“De f.’s Br.”) (D.I. 23). Plaintiff oppose d the motion a nd Defendant fil ed a reply brief. Pl.’s Answering Br. Opp’n Advanced Micro De vices, Inc.’s Mot. J. Pleadings Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (“ Pl.’s Resp. Br.”) (D.I. 34); Advance d Micro Devices, Inc.’s Reply Br. Supp. Mot. J. Pleadings Failure State Clai m (“Def.’s Reply Br. ”) (D.I. 36). For the reasons discu ssed below, De fendant’s Motion for Jud gment on the Pleadings is grante d in part and denie d in part. BACKGROUND Empire is a Delaware limited liability company. Compl. at ¶ 1. Dr. Ez ekiel Kruglick invente d the Asserte d Patents and assigne d all his rights, title, and interests to the Asserted Patents to Empire. Id. at ¶¶ 19 – 20. The United States Patent and Tra demark Office issued the ’370 Patent on June 14, 2016, ti tled “Noc

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 3 Loopback Routing T ables to Reduc e I/O Loading and Off - Chi p Delays[,]” and issued the ’850 Patent on June 6, 2017, title d “Leakage Curre nt Variabilit y Based Power Manageme nt.” Id. at ¶¶ 6, 13. The ’370 Patent de scribes a “loopba ck simulator that intercepts inter - core m essages that othe rwise might go off chip and redirects those mes sages o n chip.” Id. at ¶ 10. The ’850 Patent a ddresses “problems assoc iated with lea kage current by tea ching a technique for p ower management base d on leakage current variability.” Id. at ¶ 16. Empire alleg es that Advanced Micro D evices is a pub lic Delawar e corporation wi th its principal p lace of business in Sa nta Clara, California. Id. at ¶ 2. Empire filed a Compla int in August 2025, a lleging infrin gement of the Asserted Patents a nd seeking monetary da mages and injunc tive relie f. See id. Advanced Mic ro Devices filed an Answ er, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclai ms to the Compla int on November 10, 2025, and Empire file d an Answer to Defendant ’s Countercla ims on Decembe r 1, 2025. Advanced Mi c ro Devices, In c.’s Answer, Af fir m. Def., Countercls. Pl.’s Compl. Patent Infringement (D.I. 19); Pl. ’s Answ er Def.’s Counte rcls. Declaratory J. (D.I. 21). Advanced Mic ro Devices filed a Moti on for Judgment on the Pl eadings for Fai lure to State a Claim on D ecember 18, 2025, a rguing that Empi re failed to plausibl y plead cl aims for d irect, in d irect, or willful infringeme nt. Def.’s Mot; Def.’s B r.

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 4 LEGAL STAN DARD The Court has jurisdi ction pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, which grant the Court juris diction ove r civil actions rela ting to patents, pla nt variety protection, copyrights, a nd trademarks. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338. Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a part y to move for judgme nt on the pleadings a fter the pleadings a re closed, but e arly enough to not de lay trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). In considering a motion for judgm ent on the plea dings, the Court “mus t accept the truth of all factual allegations in the complaint and must draw all rea sonable inferences in favor of the non - movant. ” Revell v. Port Auth. Ne w York & New Jersey (“ Rev ell ”), 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Gross v. German Found. Indus. Initia tive, 549 F. 3d 605, 610 (3d Cir. 2008)). Generall y, the purpose of a judgment on the pleadings is “ to dispose of cla ims where the ma terial facts are undisputed a nd judgment ca n be entered on the com peting pleadi ngs and exhibits thereto, and docum ents incorpor ated by referen ce.” Venetec Int’l, Inc. v. Nexus Med., LLC, 541 F. Supp. 2d 612, 617 (D. Del. 2008). A motion for j udgment on the pleadings c an be granted “only if n o relief could be granted under any se t of facts that could be pr oved.” Turbe v. Gov’t of Virgin Isla nds, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991) (cit ing Unger v. Nat’l Residents Matc hing Program, 928 F.2d 1392, 1394 – 95 (3d Cir. 1991)).

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 5 A motion for judgme nt on the pleadi ngs under Rule 12(c) for fa ilure to state a claim “is analyzed under the same standards tha t apply to a R ule 12(b)(6) motion.” Revell, 598 F.3d at 134. Rule 8(a) requires tha t pleadings conta in a short and plain state ment of the cla im showing that the plea der is entitled to re lief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). If ple adings fail to stat e a claim, in whole or in pa rt, on which a court may grant reli ef, a defenda nt may seek to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion t o dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matte r, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal (“Iqbal ”), 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombl y (“ Twombly ”), 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A c laim has facial plausibil ity when the plaintiff plea ds factual cont ent that allows the court to draw the re asonable infe rence that the defendant is lia ble for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Plausibility require s “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfull y.” Id. In conside ring a motion to dismiss, the Court must assume the factual allega tions contained in the complaint to be true and dra w all reasonable i nferences in fa vor of the non - movin g pa rty. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 – 56. However, “[t]hre adbare recitals of the elements of a cause of acti on, supported by me re conclusory state ments, do not suffic e” to state a claim. I qbal, 556 U.S. at 678; s ee Dona ld J. Kochan, While E ffusive, “Conclusory” i s Still Quite Elusive: The Story of a Word, Iqb al, and a Perplexi ng

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 6 Lexical Inquiry o f Supreme Importa nce, 73 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 215, 307 (2011) (“‘conclusory’ sets a standard that requires a cert ain degree of case - by - case, contextual analysis. ”). In patent infringe ment case s, allegations of infri ngement a re governed by the Iqbal / Twombly pleading standard. G olden v. Apple Inc. (“ Golden ”), 819 F. App’x 930, 930 – 31 (Fed. Cir. 2020). There must be some factual alle gations tha t, when taken as true, a rticulate why it is pla usible tha t the accused produc t infringes the patent clai m. Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Americ a (“ Bot M8 ”), 4 F.4th 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). DISCUSSI ON I. Direct In fringemen t Liability for direc t infringement arises when a pa rty “without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United Sta tes or imports into the Unit ed States any pa tented inven tion during the te rm of the patent[.]” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To pl ead direct infrin gement, a plai ntiff must rec ite “some factual allegations that, when taken as true, articulate why it is plausible that the accus ed pro duct infr inges the p atent cl aim.” Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1353. “[A] plaintiff cannot a ssert a pla usible claim for infrin gement under t he Iqbal / Twombly standard by rec iting the cla im elements and me rely concluding that the accused product has those elements.” Id. To satisfy the Iqbal pleading sta ndard in a pate nt

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 7 case, “[s ]pecifi c facts ar e not ne cessary[.]” Disc Dis ease Sols. Inc. v. VG H Sols., Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Ci r. 2018) (quoting E rickson v. Pa rdus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). The complaint needs t o only give a defe ndant “fair notic e of what the [infringe ment] claim is and the ground upon whi ch it rests.” Id. Defendant argue s that Plaintiff fa iled to plausibly ple ad direc t infringement of the ’370 and ’850 Pa tents because a higher pleading sta ndard for complex technology ha s not been met. See Def.’s Br. at 4 – 17. Defendant contends that in accordan ce with th e Court of Appeals for the Federal Circ uit ’s (“CAFC”) decision in Bot M8, Plaintiff needed to plead a n increased level of de tail given the complexity of the technology a nd Defendant states that Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead fact s to su ggest th at the accu sed pro ducts pr actice mater ial claim elemen ts of the Asser ted Paten ts. See i d. at 5, 9. The app lication s of Bot M8 in Lexington Luminance LLC v. Bulbrite Indus., Inc., No. 22 - 3787, 2023 WL 143911 (D.N.J. Jan. 10, 2023) and V ervain, LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 6:2 1 - CV - 00487 - ADA, 2022 WL 23469 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022) a re cited by Defenda nt to support its contention tha t Plaintiff’s Complaint needed m ore detailed a llegations given t he complexity of the technology. See id. at 5 – 6. Plaintiff argues th at the Complaint provided de tailed alle gations and element - by - element comparisons of the claim lim itations to Defendant’s a ccused products to plausibl y plea d direc t infringement. Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 7 – 8. Plaintiff

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 8 states that D efendant as ks for a heightened ple ading standa rd that this Court has rejected because an ident ical argu ment for a heightened - pleading sta ndard w as denied by the C ourt in Staton Tec hiya, LLC v. Harman Int ’ l Indus., Inc. (“Sta ton Techiya ”), 734 F. Supp. 3d 354, 3 72 (D. Del. 2024). Id. at 2, 7. Plaintiff c ontends that the Compla int’s allega tions are more than suffi cient “ to suggest that discove ry may reveal evide nce to supports [its] c laim of infringe ment.” Id. at 17 (altera tion in original) (citing All Terminal Servs., LLC v. Roboflow, Inc., No. 25 - 476 - WCB, 2025 WL 2576394 (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 2025 - 2150, 20 25 WL 2911335 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2025)). The Court disagree s with Defenda nt that there is a heightened plea ding standard for pat ent infringem ent after the CA FC’s decision in Bot M8. This Court has addressed similar a rgument s previous ly and determ ined tha t the CAFC acknowledged in Bot M8 that “the level of detail re quired in any given case will vary depending on a number of fact ors, including the complexity of the technology, t he materiality of a ny given eleme nt to practicing the asserted cla im(s), and the nature of the allegedly infrin ging dev ice,” but rei terated t he standar d established in Twombly. Staton Techiya, 734 F. Supp. 3d a t 372 (quoting Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1352 – 53); see also Jumbo Tech. Co. v. Evolution US LLC, No. 1:25 - CV - 00660 - JCG, 2026 WL 172045, a t *3 (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2026) (“ [T] he CAFC maintained that the Iqbal / Twombly plausibility sta ndard does not re quire spec ific

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 9 facts, but mere ly enough to give a defendant notice of t he claim and to perm it the court to draw a rea sonable inferenc e that the defendant i s liable. ”). Direct infringement is subject to the Iqbal / Twombly pleading standard that is not heightened and re quires alle ging “‘enough fac t[s] to raise a rea sonable expecta tion that discove ry will reveal’ tha t the defendant is lia ble for the misc onduct allege d.” Golden, 819 Fed. App’x at 930 – 31 (quoting In Re Bill of Lading T ransm’n & Processing Sys. Patent Litig. (“ In Re Bill of Lading ”), 681 F.3d 1323, 13 41 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Count I of Plaintiff ’s Complaint alleges that De fendant designs, manufactures, uses, and sells or offers for sale produc ts that infringe at least Claim 14 of the ’370 Pate nt. Compl. at ¶¶ 22 – 23. Claim 14 of the ’370 Pa tent is reproduced in the Complaint and recites: 14. A multicore pro cessor adapte d to perform o n - chip loopba ck, the multicore proce ssor comprising: [a] a plurality of pr ocessor core s; [b] a controller configure d to identify one or more proce sses executing on the plurality o f processor c ores, the pro cesses adapte d to communicate w ith each other via a n off - chip network, where in the controller is further config ured to: [c] generate a c ore - process - to - IP - address ma p; [d] identify a designa tion processor core for a message based on the core - proce ss - to - IP - address map; and [e] iden tify dat a associ ated wit h a message to be delivered to the identified de stination proc essor core; a nd [f] a loopback simula tor at a processor hardware la yer, the loopback simulator configu red to deliver me ssages between the one or more processes via on - c hip comm unication by proce ssing the identi fied data

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 10 back into one or m ore on - chip fli ts to be de livered to the i dentified destination proc essor core. Compl. at ¶ 31; see ’370 Patent at 1 6:43 – 60. The Complaint states that all Advanced Micro D evices ’ products that include “ Zen 3 microarchite cture and/or later - released generation of Ze n microarchite cture” infringe at least Cla im 14 of the ’3 7 0 Patent. Co mpl. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff identifie s products suc h as the “Ryze n” and “EPYC serie s products” (“’370 Infri nging Produc ts”) as infringing prod ucts that “embody ea ch and every limita tion of at least Cla im 14 of the ’370 Pa tent [. ]” Id. at ¶¶ 27, 32. Plaintiff identi fies a list of proce ssors, by their series and mode l numbers, in De fendant’s Ryzen l ine that allege dly operate wit h infringing microarch itectur e. Id. at ¶ 25; see Ex. C (D.I. 1 - 1) at 42 – 53. The Co mplain t alleges that the ’370 Infringing Products “compris e a multicore proce ssor adapte d to perform on - chip lo opback.” Id. at ¶ 33. Exemplary ima ges are provided to show that the ’370 Infringing Pro ducts include a “Core Comple x Die” that “house s a single group of proce ssor cores called a Core Com plex” and a controller “configured to i dentify one or more processes exe cuting on the plur ality of proce ssor cores” tha t are “adapte d to c ommunicate with each other via a n off - chip network.” Id. at ¶¶ 39 – 42. Th e Complaint cl aims that the ’370 Infringi ng Products i nclude a controlle r that generates “a core - process - to - IP - address map” that identi fies “data associate d with a message to be deli vered to the identifie d designatio n processor core,” and

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 11 explains that in the “EPYC 7003 Series proc essors with Ze n 3 microarchitec ture,” “ the CCDs connect to memory, I/ O, and each othe r through the I/O die [], where the [I/O die] cont ains, e.g. UMCs. ” Id. at ¶¶ 49– 50. Exemplary images are als o included in the C omplaint with Plai ntiff’s explana tions to show how the ’370 Infringing Prod ucts “include a loopback simula tor” in connec tion with Clai m 14’s element (f). Id. at ¶¶ 37, 53 – 59. Count II of the Compla int allege s that Defendant designs, manufac tures, uses, and sells or offers for sa le products t hat infringe at least Claim 12 of the ’850 Patent. Id. at ¶¶ 65 – 67. Claim 12 of the ’850 Pa tent is reproduc ed in the Complaint as follows: 12. A system to provide a leakage current vari ability based powe r management, the system comprising: [a] a memory; and [b] a processor coup led to the m emory, where in the processor inc ludes one or more cores and is configure d to execute a powe r management application in c onjuncti on with one or m ore instructi ons stored in the memory, [c] wherein the powe r management appli cation is configure d to: receive c omputation data from a power controll er and one or more processor instruc tion counters (PIC) of one of the one or more core s of the processor; [d] generate a ta ble of linear combination sa mples from the computation da ta, where in the one or more i nstructions ar e grouped based on one or more sub - units of a select ed core associ ated wi th each one of the one or more instruc tions, and where in each of t he linear combination sa mples include a power usage value for a sub - unit of the selected core; [e] gener ate a micro - architect ural leak age map o f the select ed cor e from the linear combination samples within the table;

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 12 [f] in response to de tection that a sec ond sub - unit being de activated based on the micro - architectu ral leak age map, direct a thread o f a su bset of the one or more inst ructions to a first s ub - unit; [g] in response to dete ction that the first sub - unit is unable to compensate the deactivation of the second sub - unit, reacti vate the second sub - unit; [h] execute a thread migrat ion operation to move the thread from the first sub - unit to the sec ond sub - unit, the threa d to be executed by the second sub - unit; and [i] in response to a completion of a n execution of th e thread; move the thread back to the first sub - unit, and deactivate the second sub - unit. ’ 850 P atent at 16:60 – 17:27; see Compl. at ¶ 73 1. The Complaint alleges that Advanced Mic ro Devices’ produc ts that include “Zen 3+ microarc hitecture and/or a later - released generation of Zen mi croarchitec ture” infringe Cla im 12 of the ’850 Patent. Compl. at ¶ 66. Ryzen and E PYC series products are identified a s infringing produc ts (“’850 Infringi ng Products”). Id. at ¶ 69. Plaintiff identifies a list of processors in Defenda nt’s Ryzen line, by the ir series and mode l numbers, that allegedly ope rate w ith infringing microa rchitecture. Id. at ¶ 68; see Ex. D (D.I. 1 - 1) at 54 – 61. The Complaint describe s how each lim itation of Claim 12 of the ’850 Pate nt is infringed. Compl. at ¶¶ 74 – 99. For example, exemplary image s are provided to show tha t the ’850 Infringing Prod ucts perform a me thod to provide a lea kage current varia bility 1 The Complaint reproduced Claim 12 o f the ’850 Paten t in its enti rety but stated that Claim 1 2 is “a method” rather than “a system” as is stated in the ’850 Patent. See Compl. at ¶ 73. This error is min or and remedie d by Plain tiff attach ing the ’850 Patent to the Complain t in full which provided the accurate wording of Claim 12. ’850 Patent at 16:60–17:27; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.”).

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 13 based power mana gement through the “Zen 3+” core. Id. at ¶¶ 75 – 82. Plaintiff alleges that the ’850 Infringing Products include a processor and me mory that can “execute a powe r management appli cation” wit h instructions store d in the memory. Id. at ¶¶ 83 – 86. The Compla int alleges that the ’850 Infringing Produc ts are configure d to re ceive computat ion data from a powe r controller and one or more processor instruc tion counters. Id. at ¶ 87. The ’850 Infringin g Products a llegedly configure a pow er management applic ation to gene rate a table of linea r combination sa mples from the com putation data. Id. at ¶ 91. Plaintiff describe s threading in the power managem ent applica tion and simultaneous m ultithrea ding technology in D efendant’s microa rchitecture s that reads on Claim 12 of ’850 Patent. Id. at ¶¶ 94 – 99. The Court conclude s that Empire identified mi croarchitec ture in Defendant’s products that a llegedly infringe Claim 14 of the ’370 Pa tent and Cla im 12 of the ’850 Patent. T he Complaint provides de tailed e xplanations with exe mplary images connecting how t he products infringe on each lim itation of Claims 14 and 12 in the Asserted Patents. A ccept ing Plaintiff’s factual allegations in the C omplaint as true and drawing all reasonabl e inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Complaint plausibly pleads clai m s for direct infringe ment. See Revell, 598 F.3d at 134. Plaintiff has met the Iqbal / Twombly standard and sufficie ntly pled fact s to state a claim for direct infringe ment of the A sserted Patents. The Court conclude s that the

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 14 Complaint provide d Defenda nt with fair notice of infrin gement, and the Court denies Defenda nt’s Motion for Judgm ent on the Pleadings for the claims of di rect infringement in Counts I and II. II. Indirect Infringe ment Before analyzing i f a claim for indire ct infringem ent has bee n pled sufficiently, the Court must first re solve if Plainti ff properly al leged direc t infringement. See In Re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1333 (“It is axiom atic that there can be no induc ement or contribut ory infringe ment without an und erlying act of direct infringe ment.”) (quot ation omitte d). As Plaintiff has pled dire ct infringement sufficiently, the Court proce eds to examine the indirect infringe ment claim s. To plead induced i nfringement unde r 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), a complaint must plead facts pla usibly showing tha t the accused infri nger spec ifically inte nded another party to inf ringe the pate nt and knew tha t the other party’s ac ts constituted infringement. Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim - Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fe d. Cir. 2017); see also 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (“Whoever activel y induces infringe ment of a patent shall be liable as an infringe r.”). A plaintiff is re quired to al lege facts supporting a reasonable infere nce that the defe ndant had knowledge of the patent - in - suit. Global - Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (“Global - Tech ”), 563 U.S. 754, 764 – 66 (2011). “[U]nli ke direct infringement, the patentee must show t hat the

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 15 accused induce r took an affirm ative act to enc ourage infringem ent with the knowledge tha t the induced ac ts constitute pa tent infringement.” Microsoft Corp. v. DataT ern, In c., 755 F.3d 899, 904 (Fed. C ir. 2014) (citing G lobal - Tech, 563 U.S. at 764 – 66). Without kno wledge of infringe ment, the re is not enough to establish liabi lity for induced in fringement. See Global - Tech, 563 U.S. at 765 – 66. The U nited S tates Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding i n Global - Tech and clarified tha t proof of induced infri ngement require s not only knowl edge of the patent, but a lso proof that the defe ndant “knew as well that ‘the induce d acts constitute pate nt infringem ent.’” Commil USA, LL C v. Cisco S ys., Inc. (“ Commil USA ”), 575 U.S. 632, 640 (2015) (citing Global - Tech, 563 U.S. at 766). Specific inte nt is a distinct ele ment from the know ing inducement of infringing ac ts. “A party asserting a claim of induced infri ngement must ple ad facts plausibly de monstrating t hat there has bee n direct infringe ment, and that ‘the alleged induc er knew of the pate nt, knowingly induc ed the infringin g acts, and possessed a spec ific intent to encoura ge another’s inf ringement of the patent.’” Tonal Sys., Inc. v. ICON Health & Fit ness, Inc., No. 20 - cv - 1197 - LPS, 2021 WL 1785072, at *3 (D. Del. May 5, 2021) (qu oti ng Vita - Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Ci r. 2009)). If actua l knowledge is not a dequately pled, a patente e can establish knowle dge of patent i nfringement by al leging that the defendant wa s willfully blind, whi ch requires showi ng that the de fendant: (1)

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 16 subjectively be lieved that t here was a high probabil ity that the i nduced acts constituted infri ngement; and (2) took delibe rate actions to avoi d learning of tha t fact. Global - Tech, 563 U.S. at 769. Defendant cla ims that Plaintiff fa iled to plea d sufficient fac ts showing that Advanced Mic ro Devices had pre - suit kno wledge of the Asse rted Patents. Def. ’s Br. at 20. Defendant states that Plaintiff only alleges in the Complaint that “[a]t least since re ceiving notice of t his Complaint, [Advanced Micro De vices] has known of the Asse rted Patents.” Id. (quotation omitt ed). Plaintiff agrees that it alleges that D efendant ha s had knowledge of t he patent and infringe ment “sinc e receiving notic e of this Compla int.” Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 19. Plaintiff argues that Courts in this Distri ct have held tha t a defendant’s knowledge of t he asserted patents and infri ngement may be pl ed by reference to the filing of a la wsuit for both indirec t and willful infring ement, but ac knowledge s that this Court has held that “ [t] he complaint al one cannot operat e to establish knowle dge. . . without being amended [.] ”. Id. at 18 – 19 (citing Omni Medici, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc., No. 25 - 140 - WCB, 2025 WL 2720 998, at *2 –3 (D. Del. Sept. 24, 2025); Staton T echiya, 734 F. Supp. 3d at 365; ESCO Grp. LLC v. Deer e & Co., No. 20 - 1679 - WCB, 2023 WL 4199413, at *7 – 8 (D. Del. June 22, 2023)). Plaintiff reque sts the opportunit y to amend its Complaint to assert post - suit knowle dge if the Court de ems it necessar y. Id. at 19.

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 17 A complaint ca n sufficiently pr ovide the knowle dge required for ind irect infringement after an amended c omplaint is file d. Staton Techiya, 734 F. Supp. 3d at 365. However, without being amende d, the complai nt alone ca nnot operate to establish knowle dge. Id. at 365 – 66. B oth induced and contri butory infringe ment require knowle dge of the pate nt in suit and knowledge of pa tent infringe ment. Commil USA, 575 U.S. at 639 (citing Aro Mfg. Co. v. Converti ble Top Replacem ent Co., 377 U.S. 476, 488 (1964)). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any facts to establish pre - suit knowledge for indi rect infring ement. Although Pla intiff states that Defendant infringes the Asserted Patents with willful blindness, the C omplaint fails to plead any facts to support t hese allega tions. Compl. a t ¶¶ 29 – 30, 71 – 72. The Court concludes tha t Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plead sufficie nt facts to allege adequate k nowledge or will ful blindness a nd dismisses the induced a nd contributory infr ingeme nt claims in Count s I and II. The Court will pe rmit Plaintiff lea ve to amend the Com plaint to provide suffi cient post - suit kno wledge for the claims of indi rect infringe ment. III. Willful Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the Court may incre ase the amount of da mages assessed by up to three times. 35 U.S.C. § 284. The Suprem e Court has said that enhanced d amages:

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 18 are not to be mete d out in a typical infri ngement ca se, but are inste ad designed as a “punit ive” or “vindic tive” sanc tion for egregious infringement behavior. The sort of conduct wa rranting enhanc ed damages has be en variously desc ribed in our case s as willful, wanton, malicious, bad - faith, delibe rate, consc iously wrongful, fla grant, or — indeed — c haracteris tic of a pirate. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pul se Elecs. I nc. (“ Halo ”), 579 U.S. 93, 103 – 04 (2016). For willful infringement, facts must be alleged “plausibly dem onstrating that the accused infringer ha d comm itted subjective w illful infringem ent as of the date of the filing of the w illful infringe ment claim[. ]” Disruptive Res., LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Prods. Inc., No. 1:24 - CV - 00321 - JCG, 2025 WL 2879447, at *9 (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2025) (quoti ng Välinge Innova tion AB v. Halstead New England C orp., No. 16 - CV - 1082 - LP S - CJB, 2018 WL 2411218, at *12 (D. De l. May 29, 2018), report and recom mendation adopte d, 2018 WL 11013901 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2018)) (alterations in ori ginal). “Knowledge of the pa tent alleged to be w illfully infringed continues to be a prerequisite to e nhanced damage s. ” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler C o., 829 F.3d 1317, 1341 (Fe d. Cir. 2016) (citi ng Halo, 579 U.S. at 1932 – 33). Plaintiff’s Complaint states that Defenda nt’s infringe ment of the Assert ed Patents has bee n “willful” since rec eiving notice of the Complaint, but ple ads no facts regarding pre - suit knowledge of the patent. Compl. at ¶¶ 60, 100. The Court concludes tha t Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plead sufficie nt facts to allege adequate k nowledge and dismisses the claims of willful infringement in Count s I

Court No. 1:25 - cv - 01049 Page 19 and II. The Court will permit Plaintiff leave to a mend the Complaint to assert post - suit knowle dge for claim s of willful infringem ent. Accordingly, for the foregoing re asons, the C ourt denies Defendant’s Motion for Judgme nt on the Pleadings on the claims of direc t infringement i n Counts I and II, grants Defendant ’s Motio n for Judgment on the Pleading s on the claims of ind uced, contributor y, and willful infringement in Counts I and II, and grants Plaintiff le ave to amend its Com plaint. CONCLUSION Upon considerati on of Defendant’s M otion for Judgm ent on the Pleading s (D.I. 22), and all other papers and procee dings in this a ction, it is here b y ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Plea dings (D.I. 22) is granted in part and de nied in part; a nd it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall amend i ts Complaint (D.I. 1) on or before March 12, 2026; a nd it is further ORDERED that Defendant shall file its response on or be fore March 26, 2026. IT IS SO OR DERED this 26 th day of February, 202 6. /s/ Jennifer Choe - Grove s Jennifer Choe - G roves U.S. District C ourt Judge ∗ ∗ Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.