IP Law Daily, PATENT—D.N.J.: Direct infringement claims survive against DraftKings; willful and indirect claims dismissed with prejudice, (Mar 19, 2026)

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

The court found the complaint plausibly alleged infringement of gaming patents but failed to establish pre-suit knowledge or intent.

A federal district court in New Jersey has granted in part and denied in part DraftKings’ motion to dismiss a licensing and enforcing entity’s patent infringement claims, allowing allegations of direct infringement of mobile gaming and interactive entertainment technology patents to proceed while dismissing with prejudice all claims for willful, induced, and contributory infringement. The court held that the licensing entity plausibly alleged that DraftKings’ gaming platforms practiced the claimed methods, but failed to plead facts showing DraftKings had pre-suit knowledge of the patents or that it knowingly engaged in infringing conduct (Winview IP Holdings, LLC v. Draftkings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-13405-GC-JTQ (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2026)).

Background. WinView IP Holdings, LLC, the plaintiff, is a licensing and enforcement entity operating in the mobile gaming and interactive television sector. The defendant, DraftKings Inc., and related entities are digital sports entertainment companies offering online sports betting, fantasy sports, and casino-style gaming products. The dispute arose from DraftKings’ operation of multiple gaming platforms allegedly incorporating WinView’s patented technologies.

The litigation concerned U.S. Patent Nos. 10,721,543 (the ’543 patent) and 10,806,988 (the ’988 patent). The ’543 patent relates to a distributed entertainment system enabling real-time interaction with live events through mobile devices, including location-based service delivery and dynamic content transmission. The ’988 patent covers a method and system for conducting multiple competitions of skill tied to a single performance, including generating contest options, receiving user selections, and updating standings based on real-world events.

WinView alleged that five DraftKings products—Sportsbook and Casino, DraftKings Casino, DK Horse, Daily Fantasy, and Pick6—implemented patented methods involving server-device communication, real-time updates, and location-based service delivery.

After earlier dismissals of portions of the Second Amended Complaint, WinView filed a Third Amended Complaint asserting revised infringement theories, including reliance on claim 118 of the ’543 patent. DraftKings moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that WinView failed to plausibly allege infringement and lacked sufficient factual allegations to support willful and indirect infringement claims.

Direct infringement of the ’543 patent. The court held that WinView plausibly pleaded direct infringement of the ’543 patent. Applying Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021), it emphasized that, while element-by-element pleading is not required, the complaint must include factual allegations explaining why infringement is plausible.

The court found that the Third Amended Complaint identified specific accused products and described their functionality in detail, including server-based communication, location tracking, and delivery of dynamic content to user devices. These allegations sufficiently linked DraftKings’ systems to the claimed method steps.

Further, DraftKings argued that newly identified products—DraftKings Casino, DK Horse, and Pick6—were improperly added and insufficiently described. The court rejected this argument, holding that plaintiffs are not required to describe every accused product in exhaustive detail so long as the complaint provides fair notice. It relied on Promos Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2018 WL 5630585 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2018), to conclude that identifying representative products and a class of similar products can suffice.

Additionally, DraftKings contended that WinView failed to plead a specific claim limitation requiring grouping of transmitted assets into “necessary” and “preferred” sets. The court acknowledged that the complaint did not explicitly describe this grouping but held that such omission was not fatal. Citing Staton Techiya, LLC v. Harman International Industries, 734 F. Supp. 3d 354 (D. Del. 2024), the court reiterated that a plaintiff need not plead every claim element so long as the allegations provide sufficient notice of the accused conduct.

Willful infringement. The court dismissed willful infringement claims, finding that WinView failed to plausibly allege DraftKings’ knowledge of the asserted patents prior to suit. Although WinView alleged pre-issuance discussions and disclosure of related patent applications, the court held that such allegations were insufficient because willful infringement requires knowledge of the issued patent itself. Relying on Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersystems Industrial Products, Inc., 897 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court reiterated that one cannot infringe a non-existent patent.

The court also rejected allegations that DraftKings had knowledge based on industry disclosures or press releases, holding that generalized assertions of publicity do not establish knowledge absent specific facts linking the defendant to awareness of the patent.

WinView’s reliance on post-suit notice, including a notice letter and the complaint itself, was likewise rejected. The court followed its earlier ruling that post-filing knowledge cannot sustain willfulness claims, aligning with ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Del. 2021).

Induced and contributory infringement. The court dismissed claims for induced and contributory infringement for both patents, holding that these claims require knowledge of the patent and knowledge of infringement. Citing Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. 632 (2015), and Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the court emphasized that intent and knowledge are essential elements. Because WinView failed to plead pre-suit knowledge, the court declined to analyze further elements, such as specific intent or the lack of substantial noninfringing uses.

Dismissal with prejudice. The court dismissed WinView's willful and indirect infringement claims with prejudice, noting that WinView had already amended its complaint multiple times with the court's detailed guidance. Finding that further amendment would be futile, the court exercised its discretion to terminate those claims permanently.

Thus, the court significantly narrowed the case, allowing WinView’s core direct infringement claims to proceed while eliminating enhanced damages and indirect liability theories.

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-13405-GC-JTQ.

Judge: Castner, G.

Attorneys: Michael James Gesualdo (Robinson Miller LLC) for Winview IP Holdings, LLC. James E. Cecchi (Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, PC) for Draftkings Inc.

Companies: Winview IP Holdings, LLC; Draftkings Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent NewJerseyNews GCNNews