1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Competence Of Proffered Counsel Opinions Is Relevant To Willful Infringement

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 | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights