Resurrecting the Need for Attorneys' Opinions

more+
less-

n 2004, the Federal Circuit eliminated the negative inference that arose if an alleged patent infringer did not obtain, or rely on, an attorney’s opinion in defense of a claim of willful infringement. (See Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp.). Approximately a year ago, the Federal Circuit cut back the need to obtain an attorney’s opinion even more. In In re Seagate Technology, LLC the court overruled a long-standing precedent and held that “there is no affirmative obligation to obtain [an] opinion of counsel.” The court also raised the showing necessary for a finding of willful infringement -- “at least a showing of objective recklessness” by clear and convincing evidence is required. With these decisions, the need to obtain an attorney’s opinion was dead, or at least on life support.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Briggs and Morgan | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

more+
less-

Briggs and Morgan on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×