• 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 / Willfulness avoided provided that reasonable defense is raised

Willfulness avoided provided that reasonable defense is raised

September 28, 2015 by James Yang

ReasonableDefenseBottom line: Proving willful infringement is becoming increasingly difficult. Even if the accused infringer is ultimately found liable, and even if it ignores a patent and/or volitionally infringes the patent, the infringer can be absolved of liability for willful infringement if the infringer, during litigation, puts forth a reasonable defense to patent infringement or patent invalidity .  The reason for the increased difficulty in proving willfulness is illustrated in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Tech. Group (Fed. Cir. 2015) where the Federal Circuit held that the objective prong of the willfulness analysis is not associated in any way with the state of mind of the infringer.

Willful patent infringement has a legal definition which may be significantly different from a layperson’s expectation of what willful patent infringement ought to be.  From the layperson’s perspective, willful patent infringement ought to focus on the state of mind of the infringer at the time of the infringing acts.  If the infringer did not actually know about and did not actively ignore the patent, the reasoning goes, then how could it have been willful in infringing the patent? It may seem that the state of mind of the infringer ought to be paramount to whether the infringing activities are willful.

The legal definition includes a subjective prong/inquiry but it also has an objective prong/inquiry, both of which must be met to properly reach a conclusion of willfulness.  Willful patent infringement requires a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, and (2) this objectively defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.  If either of the objective and subjective prongs is lacking, then there is no willful patent infringement.   This is where the legal definition depart from the layperson’s view of willful patent infringement.

In Carnegie Mellon (CMU), CMU owned two patents related to controller ICs for hard disk drives and solving problems with reading and writing to the hard drives. In 1997, the inventors filed a provisional patent application on their solutions and ultimately obtained a patent.  In May 1998, they published a paper in a publication of the most popular electrical engineering association.

Around 2001, Marvell engineers became aware of CMU’s invention through the published paper and incorporated the technology into their own hard drives controller ICs.  From 2003 to 2012, Marvell sold 2.3 million chip sets incorporating the patented technology.

The jury found that Marvell knew of CMU’s patents before the start of litigation.  It also found that Marvell actually knew or should have known that its actions infringed the patent’s claims.  The district court found that Marvell acted in a subjectively reckless manner with respect to the risk of infringing the subject patents.  The Federal Circuit affirmed these findings.  Under a layperson’s perspective, this ought to constitute willful patent infringement because of the infringer’s state of mind at the time of the infringing acts.  However, under the legal definition, this subjective aspect alone does not constitute  willful infringement.

Marvell, at first, attempted to rebuff the willfulness findings by arguing that Marvell did not adopt the detailed algorithm of CMU’s patented technology into their own chip sets and that their own version was sub-optimal.  If they incorporated a sub-optimal version of the algorithm and produced a suboptimal product, under U.S. patent laws, it may still be infringing since the scope of patent protection is defined by the claims, which could be directed to a generic version of the algorithm.  As such, this argument did not work to counter a finding of willfulness.

Marvel then pointed to its invalidity defense that was raised at the time of trial to counter the willfulness charge.  In this regard, Marvell found favor in the court’s eyes.  The district court described the invalidity defense as injecting “enough uncertainty” about what the prior art disclosed and what CMU’s claims require so that it could not say that the defenses were objectively unreasonable.  The district court ultimately held that the patent was valid but did describe its decision as a “close call.”

Based on the objectiveness prong, the Federal Circuit reversed the enhanced damages award based on willful patent infringement because the invalidity defense Marvell presented during litigation was found to be objectively reasonable.  Hence, even if all of the facts favor the patent owner, no willful infringement and no enhanced damages were found because of the defenses raised during litigation. The state of mind of the infringer at the time of the infringing actvities play no part in the objectiveness inquiry.   Put simply, there seems to be an impenetrable barrier between the subjective intent of the infringer and the objective inquiry.  Thus, the defenses to infringement (non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability) or reasons for a less than high risk of patent infringement can be uncovered or brought forth at any time and does not need to be established before litigation or at the time of the infringing activity.

Even so, it is still a good idea to conduct a non-infringement and/or invalidity study when faced with accusations of patent infringement so that one can make a determination of the risks involved with a particular course of action.   Ignoring a patent is not advisable since there could be a substantial risk of enhanced damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages, should no reasonable defense can be put forth during litigation.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

  • 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