Competence Of Proffered Counsel Opinions Is Relevant To Willful Infringement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.06
In upholding a district court decision concerning willful infringement and the awarding of attorneys' fees, a Federal Circuit panel in Golden Blount, Inc v. Peterson Co. , (Nos. 04-1609,05-1141,-1202; February 15, 2006) finds, in agreement with the district court, that the accused infringer could not rely on oral opinion of counsel to avoid willful infringement because counsel did not examine either the patent‘s prosecution history or the accused device. The panel views Knorr Bremse as addressing only adverse inferences based on absence of an opinion letter. In this case the accused infringer “did not assert a privilege and ‘offered up' the opinions of counsel as a defense.” Therefore, the competence of these opinions is deemed relevant and as having been properly considered.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
