Reported / Citable
Background
Skysong Innovations, Arizona State University’s technology-management and transfer arm, sued CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. for allegedly infringing five patents concerning cybersecurity, Internet communications, dark-web forum categorization, neural networks, and software security.
CrowdStrike moved to dismiss Skysong’s claims for pre- and post-suit induced infringement, willful infringement, and direct infringement of the ’721 patent. The motion challenged whether Skysong adequately pleaded CrowdStrike’s knowledge and intent, and whether the ’721 allegations improperly relied on conduct by Cloudflare.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland recommended granting the motion as to pre-suit inducement, pre-suit willfulness, and post-suit willfulness, without prejudice to repleading after fact discovery. The alleged 2019 meeting and unspecified other interactions did not plausibly establish pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, and continued accused conduct during litigation, without more specific allegations of malicious or bad-faith conduct, did not adequately plead post-suit willfulness.
The magistrate judge recommended denying dismissal of post-suit inducement and direct infringement of the ’721 patent. Skysong identified particular CrowdStrike products and instructions or support allegedly directing customers to use them in infringing ways. Its ’721 allegations accused CrowdStrike itself, and the cited joint CrowdStrike-Cloudflare materials plausibly described Falcon Platform conduct attributable to CrowdStrike rather than asserting joint infringement.
Key Takeaways
- General pre-suit interactions and discussions of technology did not plausibly establish knowledge of the asserted patents.
- Specific customer instructions and technical support can adequately plead post-suit inducement at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- Continued accused infringement after suit alone did not adequately plead willfulness.
Why It Matters
The report distinguishes inducement pleading from willfulness pleading: detailed allegations that a defendant instructs customers to infringe may support post-suit inducement, but continued litigation-stage conduct does not itself show the egregious conduct required for willfulness.
This is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court ruling; the parties may object within 14 days.