Knorr-Bremse V. Dana Corporation - Willful Patent Infringement May No Longer Be Inferred Either from the Failure to Seek Legal Advice or Invoking the Attorney-Client Privilege, According to the Federal Circuit

By Mota, Sue Ann | Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, May 2005 | Go to article overview

Knorr-Bremse V. Dana Corporation - Willful Patent Infringement May No Longer Be Inferred Either from the Failure to Seek Legal Advice or Invoking the Attorney-Client Privilege, According to the Federal Circuit


Mota, Sue Ann, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal


I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided en banc on September 13, 2004 that no adverse inference of willful infringement of a patent may be drawn either from the failure to obtain legal advice or the invocation of the attorney-client privilege concerning the advice sought. (1) This landmark case, Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GMBH v. Dana Corporation, (2) hereinafter Knorr-Bremse, overrules prior Federal Circuit precedent (3) and makes willful patent infringement (4) more difficult to prove, and thus treble damages (5) and attorneys' fees, (6) more difficult to obtain, in patent infringement suits.

This article will examine the historical precedent for an inference of willful patent infringement either from the failure to receive legal advice on the issue or the invocation of the attorney-client privilege concerning advice sought. This article will then analyze Knorr-Bremse, called one of the major appellate cases of 2004, (7) in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled their own prior precedent to no longer allow such an inference. This article will conclude with implications arising from this landmark case.

II. INFERENCE OF WILLFUL PATENT INFRINGEMENT FROM EITHER FAILURE TO CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL OR INVOKING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

The U.S. Patent Act defines a patent infringer as anyone who, "without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention" during the patent term. (8) A civil remedy is available for patent infringement. (9) These civil damages are to be adequate to compensate for the infringement, and, according to the Patent Act section 284, may be increased by the court to up to three times the amount found or assessed. (10) The court in exceptional cases, may also award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, under the Patent Act section 285. (11)

The increase in damages authorized by section 284 may occur when the infringement is willful. (12) No statutory standard sets the circumstances under which the district court may find willfulness to enhance damages. (13) In determining willful infringement, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence in the totality of the circumstances (14) that the alleged infringer acted in disregard of the patent and lacked a reasonable basis for believing that he had the right to perform the infringing act. (15) The totality of the circumstances must be weighed by the district court. (16)

While there is no hard and fast per se rule for willfulness, (17) the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, has recognized several factors which may be weighed in determining whether damages should be enhanced. (18) These factors include: (1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; (2) whether the infringer, when the infringer knew of the patent holder's patent protection, investigated the issue and had a good faith belief that the patent was invalid or was not infringed; (3) the infringer's behavior as a party to the litigation; (4) the defendant's size and financial condition; (5) closeness of the case; (6) duration of the infringer's misconduct; (7) the infringer's motivation for harm; and (8) whether the defendant attempted to conceal his misconduct. (19)

Considering the second factor--investigating the issue and forming a good faith belief of non-infringement--the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of non-willful infringement and no enhanced damages when the alleged infringer had a copy of the invention not marked "Patent Pending," and no patent had been issued, when there was reasonable reliance on advice of counsel. (20) There are similar illustrative, but not exhaustive, decisions involving advice of patent counsel. For example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of willfulness when a patent attorney evaluated the patent and advised the defendants that their competing invention did not infringe. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Knorr-Bremse V. Dana Corporation - Willful Patent Infringement May No Longer Be Inferred Either from the Failure to Seek Legal Advice or Invoking the Attorney-Client Privilege, According to the Federal Circuit
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.