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 | 4 min read | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
