“Close Call” In Terms of Infringement and Validity Precludes Willfulness Claim In Patent Case

Originally published by Steven Callahan.

On March 9, 2015, Judge Lynn issued an Order (available here) in Melchior v. Hilite International. The Court found that a “close call” in terms of infringement/invalidity issues precluded the plaintiff’s willfulness claim:

Specifically, the Court found Plaintiff did not meet the objective prong of willful infringement because the issues of infringement and invalidity were, in the Court’s view, a “close call.” See AFT Trust v. J&L Fiber Services, Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of no objective recklessness based on the patent’s language, compelling non-infringement and invalidity arguments, and the PTO’s rejection of the reissue application); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming the district court’s finding of no willful infringement on the objective prong because the issue of infringement was a “close one”).

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1JAuXD8
via Abogado Aly Website