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

AutorPing Hsun Chen
CargoPing Hsun Chen is Assistant Professor at the Graduate Institute of Technology, Innovation and Intellectual Property Management, National Chengchi University
Páginas27-42
2727
To Obtain a Patent Non-Infringement Opinion, Or Not to Obtain It.
at’s the Question!
Obtener o no obtener una opinión de no infringir patentes. ¡Esa es la cuestión!
P-H C
National Chengchi University1
Summary
is 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. is paper discusses some observations from those decisions.
e observations give a basis for thinking of whether to acquire a patent non-infringement
opinion. e 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.
Keywords
Willful Infringement / Patent / Non-infringement Opinion.
Resumen
Este trabajo pretende analizar el riesgo al adquirir una opinión de no infringir patentes. Después
del caso Seagate, han aparecido muchas decisiones de los tribunales distritales o del Tribunal
de Circuito Federal que han implicado infracciones intencionales. Este documento articula
algunas observaciones de esas decisiones que dan una base para pensar en si se debería adquirir
una opinión de no infringir patentes. El análisis está presentado para analizar a un infractor, sea
potencial o ya acusado: la compañía T que podría ser acusada de violación directa o indirecta.
Al analizar y discutir los casos federales de circuito o de juzgados de distrito después del caso
Seagate, este texto sugiere que no hay ninguna obligación de obtener una opinión de no infringir
patentes y que la mejor estrategia para un infractor, sea potencial o ya acusado, sería obtener tal
carta de opinión.
Palabras clave
Infracción intencional / Opinión de patentes / Infracción.
1. Introduction2
e United States Patent Law is a driving force for the American economy because it creates
incentives for developing new technology or products (Sung, 1999, pp. 1223, 1235-1236).
Not only the U.S. citizens or entities but also people outside the U.S. territory are concerned
1 Ping-Hsun Chen is Assistant Professor at the Graduate Institute of Technology, Innovation and Intellectual Property
Management, National Chengchi University. E-mail: cstr@nccu.edu.tw
2 This article is derived from a conference article that was presented in the 2011 National Technology Law Conference,
National Chiao Tung University. The author thanks the audience for their comments. The author would like to thank the

No. NSC 101-2410-H-027-001).
Ping-Hsun Chen, A. (2017). To Obtain a Patent Non-Infringement Opinion, Or Not to
Obtain It. at’s the Question!. Iuris Dictio 19, 27-42.
ISSN 1390-6402 / e-ISSN 2528-7834. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18272/iu.v19i19.898
Received on: 12/12/2016 – Accepted on: 08/03/2017
28
PING-HSUN CHEN
Iuris Dictio 19 (2017), 27-42. ISSN 1390-6402 / e-ISSN 2528-7834. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18272/iu.v19i19.898
with the patent law very much. e key reason is that the judicial system strongly supports
patentees (Brandt, 2008, pp. 699, 702)3. e most threatening tool used by courts is “punitive
damages” that is vested in Title 35 of the United States Code, Section 284 (hereafter “35
U.S.C. § 284”). Courts will implement this tool only when willful infringement is found
(Vickers, 2005, pp. 337, 344). But, the Fed. Cir. case law had created a hurdle of establishing
willful infringement.
In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. (hereafter, “US Fed.
Cir”) issued a decision, In re Seagate Tech., L LC (hereafter,Seagate”) and changed the law of
willful infringement. e old rule of willful infringement required evaluation of circumstantial
evidence by looking to the factors, such as:
(1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; […] (2) whether
the infringer, when he knew of the other’s patent protection, investigated the scope of the
patent and formed a good-faith belief that it was invalid or that it was not infringed; and (3)
the infringer’s behavior as a party to the litigation (US Fed. Cir., 1992, Read Corp. v. Portec,
Inc., 816, 827).
It is called the “due care” standard (US Fed. Cir., 2007, Seagate, 1368-1369). But, Seagate
adopted “the objective recklessness standard” (Prati, 2007, pp. 47-48). e standard was
inspired by the Supreme Court’s indication of harmonizing the remedy standards of the patent
law and copyright law (US Fed. Cir., 2007, Seagate, 1370) and by one Supreme Court’s decision
regarding the willfulness requirement for punitive damages in the Fair Credit Reporting Act4.
But, Seagate established an objective recklessness standard that is a two-step test
(Seaman, 2012, pp. 417, 464). e rst question is “by clear and convincing evidence [whether]
the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement
of a valid patent” (US Fed. Cir., 2007, Seagate, 1371)5. If the answer is yes, then the second
question is whether “this objectively-dened risk (determined by the record developed in the
infringement proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to
the accused infringer” (1371)6. To consider these two steps, the Fed. Cir. suggested that the
context of “commerce” might be a factor (1371).
The announcement of Seagate affected on-going trials in federal district courts. Some courts
refused to review their willful infringement decisions again, because the surrounding facts
still supported the finding of willful infringement under the Seagate test7, or because the
defendant did not challenge the jury instruction about willful infringement8. Some courts
decided not to review the willful infringement verdict, because they did not grant enhanced
3
Specially the part mentioning the trend of district courts’ (hereafter “US District Ct. [State]”) willingness to grant
eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange (US Supreme Court, 2006, 388)..
4 In the same document citing Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr (US Supreme Court, 2007, 127).
5            
              
infringement of other patents at issue. See Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs (US District Ct. New Jersey, 2008).
6 The scenario for the second prong could be that (1) the plaintiff has informed the defendant of infringement, that
(2) the defendant knew the possibility of infringement, that (3) the defendant did not change its products, that (4) the

infringement. See Church & Dwight Co. (US District Ct. NJ, 2008, at *28-*29).
7
See Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container (US Fed. Cir., 2008, 939, 953).
8
See QPSX Devs. 5 PTY Ltd. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. (US District Ct. Texas, 2008b).

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR