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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
