• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Patent Damages / Proving willful infringement harder than ever

Proving willful infringement harder than ever

January 29, 2015 by James Yang

Willful infringement harder to proveBottom line: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) suggests that substantial arguments presented during litigation (i.e., post litigation) for invalidity of a patent may be used as a defense to willful patent infringement even for acts of patent infringement that occurred prior to litigation.

In 2002, Halo sent letters to Pulse  with an invitation to license its patents.  Pulse had its engineers look at the patents and determined that the patents were invalid due to prior art (i.e., prior Pulse products).  Halo sued Pulse in 2007 for patent infringement.  During litigation, attorneys for Pulse presented evidence regarding obviousness of the claims of Pulse’s patents. unrelated to the reasoning provided the Pulse engineers back in 2002.

The district court found infringement.  Halo requested that the damages be trebled based on  contention that Pulse willfully infringed the patents.

A willfulness determination is analyzed under a two-prong analysis.  First, a patentee must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.  This is a threshold issue.  Second, if the threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.

Although Pulse lost on the obviousness issue and the district court held that they were infringing the patent, the district court found no willfulness in Pulse’s infringementbased on Halo’s failuire to prove the first prong of the two prong analysis on willfulness.

Pulse presented evidence during litigation that raised a substantial question as to the validity of the Halo patents.  Specifically, Pulse showed that the prior art disclosed each element of the asserted claims, that it would have been predictable to combine and modify the prior art to create the claimed invention, and that there were differences between the prior art considered by the PTO and the prior art introduced at trial.

As indicated in the second prong of the analysis, willfulness goes to the intent of the infringer.  Did the infringer intend to infringe the patent at the time of the infringing act?  In this case, the court found that Pulse infringed the patents between the years of 2002 to 2007.  During this period of time, Pulse relied  on the opinion of its own engineers that the Pulse patent was invalid, and hence not infringed. The district court did not indicate whether basis of the engineer’s opinion was reasonable.  Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of no willful infringement based on a totality of the circumstances including the new prior art presented during trial. Pulse did not willfully infringe the Halo patents throughout the entire period pre and post initiation of the litigation.

The opinion highlights the rigid procedure under which the first prong of the willfulness analysis is determinedIn this case, the quality of the engineer’s opinion appears to be a minor issue.  The reason is that even though Pulse had no knowledge of the new prior art that was introduced during trial, there was no objectively defined risk of patent infringement for their infringing acts pre-trial.  An objective standard is something that exists outside of the realm of the alleged infringer, and it  exists regardless of one’s personal knowledge.

Althoughthe defendant successfully averted a finding of willful infringement in this case without a non-infringement study for the 2002 – 2007 period, it is still very prudent to conduct one after learning of a relevant patent.  The Federal Circuit did not expressly find that the new prior art presented at trial alone was sufficient to establish a lack of an objectively defined risk of patent infringement.  The court affirmed the district court’s use of the totality of the record  including the engineer’s opinion as well as the new prior art that was used during litigation in finding that Pulse did not willfully infringe Halo’s patents.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney