A declaratory judgment action by Edmunds Holding Company against a competitor, patent owner Autobytel Inc., was dismissed when the district court in Delaware held that Autobytel did not “manifest intent to imminently enforce its rights,” despite making public statements of its intent to do so and despite prior enforcement actions brought by Autobytel (Edmunds Holding Company v. Autobytel Inc., 2009 WL 424250 (Feb. 20, 2009 D. Del.)). Given Autobytel’s history of enforcing its patent in the online car sales market, Edmunds sought to preempt a potential infringement suit and challenged the validity of Autobytel’s patent. The court, while noting that “an overt, specific act toward [Edmunds] is not required,” nevertheless held that proof of past infringement actions and public statements of the patent owner’s intent to bring an action were not sufficient to show the existence of an actual controversy or the imminence of an infringement action. Edmunds, 2009 WL 424250 at *3.