Results for willful infringement

Trading Techs. Int’l Inc. v. eSpeed Inc.

Case Number: CLB0246

Date: 02.25.2010

The Federal Circuit does not give even the slightest amount of deference to district court claim constructions, even if based on substantial factual determinations; prompt redesign efforts and complete removal of infringing products in a span of a few months after the lawsuit commenced suggest that the infringer was not objectively reckless.

view Case Detail Download PDF

In re Seagate Technology, LLC

Case Number: CLB0161

Date: 08.20.2007

The previous standard of due care for proving willful infringement, as recited in Underwater Devices, is overruled as inconsistent with other civil jurisprudence and a recklessness standard is imposed. Further, reliance on an opinion of counsel does not waive privilege with respect to a separate and independent trial counsel.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Golden Blount Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.

Case Number: CLB0132

Date: 02.15.2006

Federal district court, in concluding that defendant willfully infringed patent for gas-fired fireplace burner assembly, did not clearly err in dismissing defendant’s asserted good-faith belief that accused device did not infringe, since defendant made little or no effort to assess whether it infringed, or whether patent was invalid, after receiving notice of patent.

view Case Detail Download PDF

nCube Corp. v. SeaChange International Inc.

Case Number: CLB0133

Date: 01.09.2006

Substantial evidence supports jury’s conclusion that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff’s patent for multimedia data network, since record shows that at least one important technical document was not supplied to defendant’s opinion counsel, since opinion letter cannot negate finding of willful infringement if best information was intentionally withheld from counsel during preparation of opinion, and since evidence therefore supports finding that defendant was not entitled to rely on counsel’s opinion of non-infringement.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Case Number: CLB0033

Date: 01.20.2004

Limitation in claim directed to remote-controlled search light, which recites “horizontal drive means for rotating said lamp unit in a horizontal direction,” is not limited to device capable of rotating horizontally through 360 degrees, despite written description’s disclosure of assembly capable of such rotation, since nothing in written description requires limiting function to rotation through any particular angle.

view Case Detail Download PDF