Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An Analysis of Knorr-Bremse
It has long been held that a good faith reliance on timely and competent advice of counsel can negate a charge of willful patent infringement. Such advice of counsel can be used to potentially shield an infringer from having to pay enhanced damages of up to three times the damages under 35 U.S.C. '284 and/or the patentee's attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. '285. Similarly, a defendant's failure to obtain advice of counsel until after the company commenced its infringing activities would be evidence of willful infringement. Underwater Devices Incorporated v. Morrison-Knudsen Company, 717 F.2d 1380, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The practical application of this rule has been fraught with difficulty, however, since assertion of an opinion of counsel as a defense to a charge of willfulness typically involves a waiver of attorney-client privilege as to communications surrounding the opinion. The tension created by this dynamic was exacerbated by an adverse inference that an opinion of counsel was unfavorable if an accused infringer refused to waive privilege and disclose an opinion of counsel in defense of a willfulness charge. Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GMBH v. Dana Corp., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19185 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc) abolished the adverse inference rule, but also reaffirmed that one is under a duty of care to avoid infringement.
Thus, under the adverse inference rule, parties that failed to proffer an opinion letter at trial could run the risk of having the court instruct a jury that it could infer that the infringement was willful or wanton. To avoid this adverse inference, an alleged infringer could assert that it relied on the advice of counsel, but in raising this defense, a waiver of the attorney-client privilege would be triggered. Thus, the affirmative duty of care requirement and its enforcement by the adverse inference rule were in tension with the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity.
The recent decision in Knorr-Bremse resolved this tension by holding that adverse inferences are no longer warranted where attorney-client privilege is asserted to protect advice of counsel or where advice of counsel was not obtained. The Federal Circuit, however, reaffirmed the duty of care to avoid infringement. As a consequence, questions remain as to what actions will be sufficient to satisfy this duty of care, and particularly, whether obtaining and producing exculpatory advice from competent counsel, although effectively not required, is nonetheless advisable.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?