Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Iuris Dictio

Dossier

Núm. 19 (2017)

To Obtain a Patent Non-Infringement Opinion, Or Not to Obtain It. That is the Question!

DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v19i19.898
Submitted
June 13, 2017
Published
2017-07-04

Abstract

This paper aims at analyzing the risk of whether to acquire a patent non-infringement opinion. After Seagate, there have been many decisions of either district courts or Federal Circuit involving willful infringement. This paper discusses some observations from those decisions. The observations give a basis for thinking of whether to acquire a patent non-infringement opinion. The analysis is presented in view of a potential or accused infringer, Company T. Company T could be accused of direct or indirect infringement. By discussing either Federal Circuit"™s or district courts"™ cases after Seagate, this paper suggests that though there is no duty to get a patent non-infringement opinion, the best strategy for an accused infringer would still be to have such opinion letter.

viewed = 463 times

References

  1. Aly, I. T. (1999). Encouraging Unprofessionalism: The Magic Wand of the Patent Infringement Opinion. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 12 (3), 593-622.
  2. Anderson, C. G. et al. (2008). Willful Patent Infringement: fte First Year of the Post-Seagate Era. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 20 (9), 11-31.
  3. Brandt, M. C. (2008). Compulsory Licenses in the Aftermath of eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L.L.C.: The Courts"™ Authority to Impose Prospective Compensatory Relief for Patent Infringement. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 17 (5), 699-712.
  4. Chen, P (2016). Joinder of Unrelated Infringers as Defendants in Patent Litigation Under the Jurisprudence of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas - A Critical Review. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 98 (2), 155-181.
  5. Countryman, C. E. (2016). 2015 Patent Decisions of the Federal Circuit. American University Law Review, 65 (4), 769-932.
  6. Harkins, C. A. (2007). A Budding fteory of Willful Patent Infringement: Orange Books, Colored Pills, and Greener Verdicts, Duke Law & Technology Review, 6, 1-39.
  7. Hull, M (2004). Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: A Fog Between the Bars. Akron Law Review, 37 (2), 343-344.
  8. Lafuze W. L. et al. (2007). Exculpatory Patent Opinions and Special Problems Regarding Waiver of Privilege. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 6, 313-364.
  9. Prati, D (2008). Notes, In re Seagate Technology LLC: A Clean Slate for Willfulness. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23, 47-73.
  10. Seaman, C. B. (2012). Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After in Re Seagate: An Empirical Study. Iowa Law Review, 97, 417-464.
  11. Sung, L. M. (1999). Echoes of Scientific Truth in the Halls of Justice: fte Standards of Review Applied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Patent Related Matters. American University Law Review, 48, 1233-1318.
  12. Vickers, V. A. (2005), Willful Infringement: Enhanced Privilege and Obscure Remedies. Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 7, 337-345.
  13. Legislation:
  14. US Congress (2011). United States Code. Sections 271, 284, 287. Sept. 16, 2011.
  15. Sentences:
  16. US Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Wisconsin (2007). Muth Mirror Sys, LLC v. Gentex Corp. B.R. 805. December 5th, 2007.
  17. US District Court C. D. Illinois (2008). GSI Group, Inc. v. Sukup Mfg. Co., No. 05-3011. Oct. 9, 2008.
  18. US District Court D. Delaware (2008). Honeywell Int"™l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp. 585 F. Supp. 2d 636, 643-44. May 25, 2008.
  19. US District Court N. D. California (2007). Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, Inc. No. C 02-03378 EDL. May 16, 2007.
  20. US District Court E. D. Texas (2008). Astec America, Inc. v. Power-One, Inc. No. 6:07-cv-464. July 15, 2008.
  21. - (2008a). QPSX Devs. 5 PTY Ltd. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. No. 2:05-CV-268. 2008 March 18, 2008.
  22. US District Court D. Minnesota (2011). Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp. 649 F.3d 1336. November 30, 2011.
  23. - (2008). Northbrook Digital Corp. v. Browster, Inc. No. 06-4206. Aug. 26, 2008.
  24. US District Court N. D. Illinois (2007). Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc. 532 F. Supp. 2d 996. N.D. Ill. 2007.
  25. US District Court New Jersey (2008). Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs. No. 05-2142. Jun. 23, 2008.
  26. US District Court M.D. Pennsylvania (2007). Rhino Assocs., L.P. v. Berg Mfg. & Sales Corp. 1:04-cv-01611. March 29, 2007.
  27. U.S. District Court W.D. Wisconsin. Franklin Elec. Co. v. Dover Corp. 05-C-598-S. Nov. 15, 2007.
  28. US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (2016). Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc. 2:15-cv-03793. June 29, 2015.
  29. US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (2016). Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc. 2:15-cv-03793. June 29, 2015.
  30. - (2009). Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. No. 3:01-CV-0485. Feb. 4, 2009.
  31. - (2009). Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp. 616 F.3d 1357. Jan. 5, 2009.
  32. - (2009). Wordtech Sys. v. Integrated Network Solutions, Corp. No. 2009-1454. Jan. 14, 2009.
  33. - (2008). Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten. No. C06-210MJP. 541 F. Supp. 2d 1151. January 28, 2008.
  34. - (2008). Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc. 2008-1333. Feb 9, 2008.
  35. - (2008). Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs. Inc. No. 14-1114. June 14, 2008.
  36. - (2008). Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. No. 04 C 7955. February 20, 2008.
  37. - (2008). Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 543 F.3d. Sept. 24, 2008.
  38. - (2008). Cohesive Techs. Inc. v. Waters Corp. 543 F.3d. October 07, 2008.
  39. - (2008). Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc. 523 F.3d 1323. April 18, 2008.
  40. - (2008). Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs. Inc. 292 F. App"™x 42. April 22, 2011.
  41. - (2008). Minks v. Polaris Indus., 546 F.3d 1364. October 17, 2008.
  42. - (2007). ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co. 06-1570. December 9, 2007.
  43. - (2007). Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway Inc. No. 07-CV-2000-H. October 30, 2007.
  44. - (2007). In Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360. March 4, 2007.
  45. - (2007). MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay. 660 F. Supp.2d 653. Dec. 11, 2007.
  46. - (2006). DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co. 471 F.3d 1293. April 6, 2006.
  47. - (2004). Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. 383 F.3d 1337. September 13, 2004.
  48. - (1992). Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc. 970 F.2d 816. Sept. 23, 1992.
  49. - (1986). Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc. 793 F.2d 1565. June 11, 1986.
  50. US Supreme Court (2007). Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr. 551 U.S. 47. June 4, 2007.
  51. - (2006). eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange. L.L.C. 547 U.S. 388. May 15, 2006.