An Analysis of Knorr-Bremse
November 09, 2004
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. <i>Underwater Devices Incorporated v. Morrison-Knudsen Company,</i> 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. <i>Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc.,</i> 793 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in <i>Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GMBH v. Dana Corp.,</i> 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19185 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (<i>en banc</i>) abolished the adverse inference rule, but also reaffirmed that one is under a duty of care to avoid infringement.
Making the Case for a 'Good Faith' Chapter 11 Filing
October 29, 2004
The distinction between recourse to Chapter 11 protection as a legitimate means to maximize the value of a company's assets and/or to restructure its financially troubled yet otherwise viable operations, on the one hand, and clear bankruptcy abuse, on the other, is sometimes murky. A court called upon to make such a distinction is obliged to "get into the debtor's head" and investigate the board's motives for commencing a bankruptcy case and, in some cases, to decide whether the debtor's otherwise permissible use of the powerful provisions of federal bankruptcy law is impermissible because the debtor's motives are antithetical to the basic purposes of bankruptcy.
IP News
October 08, 2004
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
TTAB Decisions Past: Will They Come Back to Haunt You in Federal Court?
October 08, 2004
When a dispute arises between parties regarding the use and registrability of a trademark, counsel often must weigh the facts and circumstances to advise a client whether it would be best to commence an action in the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") or file suit in federal court. In some cases however, counsel will find a client in the midst of a TTAB proceeding ' or worse ' after an unfavorable decision has been rendered against the client in an opposition or cancellation proceeding. In such situations, counsel must assess what preclusive effect, if any, the prior administrative decision may have in a subsequent trademark infringement action in federal district court.
Newcomer's Trademark Rights Take Back Seat in Limited Area to Local Prior User
October 08, 2004
What happens when a large newcomer to a geographic region with a federal registration for its service mark encounters a smaller pre-existing business in that region with prior use of a similar mark for the same services? Enjoinable reverse infringement results, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. <i>Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Citizens National Bank of Evans City,<i> Case Nos. 03-2868 and 03-3175 (3d Cir. 2004).
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: A Potent New Weapon in the Aftermarket Wars
September 02, 2004
For more than a century, original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") have sought, with only limited success, the aid of the courts to enforce restrictions against competitors' sales of products designed to complement or replace components of their proprietary technologies. At stake in each of these cases was a lucrative aftermarket for products directed to the OEM's patented technology and a "razor-and-blades" business model by which the OEM strove to attain a large installed user base for its equipment in hopes of "locking-in" customers to that aftermarket.
