IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Direct infringement claims against AMD survive; indirect and willful theories dismissed, (Mar 2, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Court finds detailed element-by-element allegations sufficient under Twombly/Iqbal, but dismisses induced, contributory, and willful claims for failure to plead knowledge.

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, has granted in part and denied in part a Rule 12(c) motion filed by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in a patent infringement suit brought by a patent licensing entity. The court held that the licensing entity plausibly alleged direct infringement of two semiconductor-related patents through detailed factual allegations tied to specific AMD microarchitectures. However, it dismissed the plaintiff’s induced, contributory, and willful infringement claims because the complaint failed to plead pre-suit knowledge of the patents or facts supporting willful blindness (Empire Technology Development LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01049-JCG (D. Del. Feb. 26, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Empire Technology Development LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company that owns the asserted patents through assignment from the inventor, Dr. Ezekiel Kruglick. The defendant, AMD, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Clara, California, that designs and sells microprocessors, including its Ryzen and EPYC product lines.

Empire filed suit in August 2025, alleging that AMD infringed its U.S. Patent Nos. 9,367,370 (the ’370 patent) and 9,671,850 (the ’850 patent). It sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. AMD answered and later moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Empire failed to plausibly plead direct, indirect, or willful infringement.

The ’370 patent, titled “Noc Loopback Routing Tables to Reduce I/O Loading and Off-Chip Delays,” was issued on June 14, 2016. It describes a multicore processor architecture featuring a loopback simulator that intercepts inter-core messages and redirects them on-chip, reducing off-chip communication delays. The ’850 patent, titled “Leakage Current Variability Based Power Management,” was issued on June 6, 2017. It addresses power management techniques based on leakage current variability. Empire alleged that AMD’s processors incorporating Zen 3, Zen 3+, and later generations of Zen microarchitecture infringed the asserted claims.

Motion. AMD moved judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which is governed by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6). Citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the court reiterated that a complaint must state a claim that is plausible on its face. The court noted that, in patent cases, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021), requires factual allegations sufficient to articulate why it is plausible that the accused products infringe the asserted claims.

Direct infringement. AMD argued that the complexity of semiconductor microarchitecture required heightened factual detail, and that Empire’s allegations were conclusory. The court rejected that contention, emphasizing that Bot M8 did not impose a heightened pleading standard. Instead, the level of detail depends on the case, and the governing standard remains plausibility under Twombly and Iqbal.

The court examined Empire’s complaint and found that it did more than recite claim language. For the ’370 patent, Empire reproduced claim 14 and provided element-by-element allegations mapping the claim limitations onto AMD’s Zen-based processors. It identified specific product lines and model numbers and included technical descriptions and images that explain how AMD’s core complex dies, controllers, and on-chip communication structures allegedly correspond to the claimed loopback simulator and mapping functions.

Similarly, for the ’850 patent, Empire reproduced claim 12 and described how AMD’s processors allegedly implemented leakage current-based power management. The complaint alleged that AMD’s processors executed power management applications, received computation data from power controllers and processor instruction counters, and performed thread migration consistent with the claimed system. The court concluded that these allegations provided fair notice and allowed a reasonable inference of infringement.

Accepting the factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Empire’s favor, the court held that Empire plausibly pleaded direct infringement of both patents. It denied AMD’s motion as to Counts I and II to the extent they alleged direct infringement.

Indirect infringement. The court then addressed induced and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c). It noted that indirect infringement requires an underlying act of direct infringement, as explained in In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing System Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Because Empire had sufficiently pleaded direct infringement, the court turned to the knowledge requirement.

Citing Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), and Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. 632 (2015), the court explained that induced infringement requires knowledge of the patent and knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Empire alleged that AMD knew of the asserted patents at least upon receiving the complaint. However, the court held that a complaint itself cannot establish the knowledge required for indirect infringement unless amended to assert post-suit knowledge.

The court found that Empire failed to plead any facts showing pre-suit knowledge or willful blindness. Its allegations of willful blindness were conclusory and lacked evidence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the induced and contributory infringement claims but granted Empire leave to amend to adequately allege post-suit knowledge.

Willful infringement. Finally, the court considered Empire’s claim for willful infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Citing Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), the court observed that enhanced damages are reserved for egregious cases of deliberate or consciously wrongful infringement. It also pointed out that the Federal Circuit has also made clear, in WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016), that knowledge of the patent remains a prerequisite for enhanced damages.

Empire alleged that AMD’s infringement was willful from the time it received notice of the complaint, but it did not plead facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge or egregious conduct. The court held that these allegations were insufficient under the plausibility standard and dismissed the willful infringement claims, again granting leave to amend.

Conclusion. Thus, the court denied AMD’s motion as to direct infringement, granted it as to induced, contributory, and willful infringement, and permitted Empire to file an amended complaint.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01049-JCG.

Judge: Choe-Groves, J.

Attorneys: David Ellis Moore (Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP) for Empire Technology Development LLC. Frederick L. Cottrell, III (Richards, Layton & Finger, PA) for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Companies: Empire Technology Development LLC; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet DelawareNews GCNNews