IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Espresso machine patent suit narrowed at pleading stage; indirect claims dismissed without prejudice, (Mar 4, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Pre-order campaigns and trade show activities plausibly alleged offers for sale and importation; indirect infringement and certain patent claims were dismissed as insufficiently pleaded.

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss in a patent infringement action concerning high-end espresso machines, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including offers for sale and importation into the United States. The court also found that the company’s founder could be personally liable for his own alleged infringing acts and was subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware. However, the court dismissed all indirect infringement claims and certain direct and willful infringement claims relating to two asserted patents for failure to plausibly plead specific claim limitations and pre-suit knowledge (Duvall Espresso IP Enforcement, LLC v. Meticulous Home, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00022-CJB (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Duvall Espresso IP Enforcement, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company owned and operated by Duvall Espresso, Inc., which develops and markets espresso-related products. The defendants are Meticulous Home, Inc., a Delaware corporation that markets a premium espresso machine, and its founder and sole owner, Juan Carlos Lopez Pendas, a resident of Mexico.

The dispute centered on three patents relating to infused beverage brewing systems: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,349,774 (the ’774 patent), 10,258,187 (the ’187 patent), and 9,867,491 (the ’491 patent). The patents generally claim devices and systems for brewing infused beverages with controlled solvent flow and temperature management. The plaintiff asserted selected claims from each patent.

According to the complaint, since at least February 2023, defendants marketed and offered for sale the accused espresso machines through their own website and crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo. The complaint alleged that defendants raised more than $10 million through pre-orders, advertised a $2,000 sales price with substantial discounts, and provided anticipated shipping dates. The plaintiff initially filed suit in the Southern District of Florida, and the case was later transferred to the District of Delaware. After the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting direct, indirect, and willful infringement, defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).

Personal liability of corporate officer. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff was required to pierce the corporate veil to hold Pendas personally liable. Citing Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, 11 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the court explained that a corporate officer may be personally liable for his own acts of patent infringement, even if those acts were performed in his corporate capacity. Veil piercing is required only to impose derivative liability for a corporation’s acts, not where the officer personally participated in the alleged infringement.

The complaint plausibly alleged that Pendas was the sole owner and decision-maker of Meticulous, controlled the company’s websites, authorized corporate filings, and personally advertised the accused products at a U.S. trade show. Those allegations sufficed at the pleading stage to state a claim for direct infringement against him.

Personal jurisdiction. The court also found that Pendas was subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware under the state’s long-arm statute. The complaint alleged that Meticulous was incorporated in Delaware, provided a Delaware address and phone number, and raised funds from at least one Delaware-based backer. Applying the “minimum contacts” standard of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the court concluded that Pendas purposefully directed activities toward Delaware. The court declined to apply the fiduciary shield doctrine, noting its uncertain status and inapplicability to alleged intentional torts such as patent infringement.

Offers for sale and importation. Defendants argued that they had not commercially launched any product and therefore could not have infringed. The court disagreed, emphasizing that Section 271(a) covers not only sales but also making, using, offering to sell, and importing patented inventions. Relying on Rotec Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the court held that a commercial offer for sale suffices.

The detailed allegations regarding pre-orders, specified pricing, discounts, and projected shipping dates plausibly alleged offers for sale. The court further reasoned that transporting and displaying prototypes at a U.S. trade show supported a plausible inference that the accused products were either made in the United States or imported into the country, both independently actionable under Section 271(a).

Indirect infringement. The court dismissed all claims of indirect infringement. Although the complaint used the phrase “indirectly infringing,” it did not clearly identify inducement or contributory infringement or plead their required elements. Under Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009), inducement requires knowledge of the patent and specific intent to encourage infringement. The complaint’s bare assertion that defendants instructed customers to use the products in an infringing manner was conclusory and insufficient.

Claim-specific deficiencies. The court dismissed direct infringement claims as to claim 1 of the ’187 patent and all asserted claims of the ’491 patent. Those claims required modulation and maintenance of solvent flow without a feedback mechanism. However, materials referenced in the complaint described digital sensors that monitored flow rate. The court concluded that the pleaded facts appeared to contradict the claim limitation, rendering the allegations implausible under Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The court allowed direct infringement claims to proceed as to claims 8 and 16 of the ’187 patent and all asserted claims of the ’774 patent.

Willfulness. The court dismissed pre-suit willful infringement claims as to the ’187 and ’491 patents because the notice letter referenced only the ’774 patent and certain foreign patents. The complaint did not plausibly allege that defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’187 or ’491 patents. However, post-suit willfulness claims relating to the surviving ’187 claims were permitted, as service of the complaint provided knowledge.

Thus, finally, the court granted dismissal without prejudice as to the dismissed claims and permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 14 days. The motion was otherwise denied.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00022-CJB.

Judge: Burke, C.

Attorneys: James Darlington Taylor (Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP) for Duvall Espresso IP Enforcement, LLC.

Companies: Duvall Espresso IP Enforcement, LLC; Meticulous Home, Inc.

Cases: Patent DelawareNews GCNNews