I spent way too long just now trying to find the origin of the phrase "piercing the veil." It's so ubiquitous in the legal parlance that I just always assumed it was from Paradise Lost or something.
Apparently, there's no clear early usage -- the nearest available is a reference in Plutarch to "lifting the veil." This phrasing honestly makes a lot more sense from a writing standpoint, because that it is what people do with veils -- its honestly pretty unhinged behavior to pierce one.
Instead, it seems to have arisen in the exact same corporate law context that I use it in. Apparently, most normals don't use it at all. I just asked the guy at the checkout at CVS and he had no idea. Or at least, that's how I interpreted the exaggerated eyeroll and sigh.
This brings me to Judge Burke's opinion in Duvall Espresso IP Enforcement, LLC v. Meticulous Home, Inc., C.A. No. 24-22-CJB (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2026). The plaintiff there filed infringement claims against a corporate entity ("Meticulous Home") and its sole owner/founder/CEO Mr. Pendas.
Mr. Pendas moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and find Mr. Pendas liable. Plaintiffs argued that they didn't need to pierce the veil, they only needed to plead that a corporate officer like Mr. Pendas participated in the infringement.
Judge Burke sided with the plaintiffs:
After a careful review of the caselaw in this area, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that a corporate officer/owner may be personally liable for his own acts of direct infringement, even if he committed those acts as part of his work for the corporation.
Id. at 9.
As to the specific allegations in the case, the Court found it sufficient that the complaint plausibly alleged that Mr. Pendas personally created and controlled websites that allowed pre-orders of the accused products and had advertised the accused products at a conference.
It certainly seems plausible that Mr. Pendas, Meticulous’ only operator and decisionmaker, is the person who ran the Meticulous-related websites that allegedly offered the accused products for sale. And it also seems plausible that Mr. Pendas was at a convention where he was trying to sell those products to potential consumers—especially if Mr. Duvall is said to have seen him there doing just that. So these allegations—i.e., those asserting that Mr. Pendas personally participated in infringing conduct—are sufficient to establish a basis for Mr. Pendas to face suit for patent infringement
Id. at 15.
I'm honestly surprised I haven't seen this theory more before given how difficult it is to meet the veil-piercing standard generally. But, as Judge Burke noted that the Federal Circuit only recently clarified this standard the 2021 case Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, 11 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021), so we may see it more going forward.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
