A company must be strategic in any business decision it makes in order to ensure that it takes the necessary measures to avoid liability for its actions. With respect to patent infringement, and specifically willful patent infringement, the different approaches to determining which measures to take and when to take such measures have been repeatedly challenged in light of a number of court decisions in recent years. To set the scene, the Federal Circuit held in Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (1983) that a potential infringer has an affirmative duty to exercise due care to determine whether or not he or she is infringing. This placed the burden on the potential infringer to seek competent counsel and obtain either a non-infringement opinion or invalidity opinion prior to undertaking the possible infringing activities. This would prevent a finding of willful infringement and treble damages.
Recent Posts
- How Commercial General Liability Policies’ ‘Coverage B’ Can Help Mitigate IP Losses
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 18: OpenAI Outlines Defensive Patent Strategy; Microsoft Files Opposition in Lawsuit Alleging Illegal Buyer’s Cartel for Patent Licenses; Moderna Under Fire for Spikevax Vaccine Tech
- NPEs Have No Obligation to Mark Under the Statute—and that Should Extend to an NPE’s Settlement Licensees
- SCOTUS Nixes McRO Eligibility Argument in Denying Yet Another Section 101 Cert Petition
- China’s Administrative Patent Infringement Procedure: A Litigation Tool Worth Patent Holders’ Notice