In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite

red Negative treatment published Abrogated by Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc… (2016) ↗ Hot · 49 in 5y Issue: advice of counsel defenseNY ↗ Quoted verbatim 30× 86.4 score

ScopeAbrogated by Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. on other grounds: 14 citing opinions limit it to other grounds and 4 say abrogated outright.

4 outright 14 on other grounds

How later opinions annotate it (2 examples)

outright Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360,1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007), abrogated by Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al., 136 S.Ct. 1923 (2017). — Cochlear Ltd. v. Oticon Med. Ab, No. 3:18-cv-06684 (D.N.J. July 29, 2019)
on other grounds Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 , 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), abrogated in a different respect by Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 , 104-10 (2016) — Univ. of South Florida Bd. of Trs. v. United States, 92 F.4th 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Counts are distinct citing opinions whose annotation names this case. The flag stays red when any point is no longer good law; the scope says how far that reaches.

Cite instead

Cite for current doctrine: Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016)

1,262 citation events (1,262 in the last 25 years) across 79 distinct courts.

Strongest positive: Global Traffic Tech. LLC v. Morgan, 620 F. App'x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2015) · Strongest negative: Cochlear Ltd. v. Oticon Med. Ab, No. 3:18-cv-06684 (D.N.J. July 29, 2019)

Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of

2007 2016 2026

How cited ↗

Cited for

At page 1371 Establishing willful infringement by objective likelihood of infringement132 citing casesThe state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.2 citing courts put it this way · 128 listed here · 1 negative · 1 cautionary

Cochlear Ltd. v. Oticon Med. Ab, No. 3:18-cv-06684 (D.N.J. July 29, 2019). Abrogated
Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted) (citing In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360,1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007), abrogated by Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al., 13…
SPX Corp. v. Bartec USA, LLC, 247 F.R.D. 516 (E.D. Mich. 2008).published Cited "but see"
(overruling Underwater Devices to establish that “there is no affirmative obligation to obtain opinion of counsel)
Global Traffic Tech. LLC v. Morgan, 620 F. App'x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2015).unpublished 3 cites
(The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.)
Aqua Shield v. Interpool Pool Cover Team, 774 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2014).published 3 cites
Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374 (“A substantial question about invalidity or infringement is likely sufficient not only to avoid a preliminary injunction, but also a charge of willfulness based on post-filing conduct.”).
Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 738 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2013).published 2 cites
([T]o establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convinc- ing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objective- ly high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent…)
Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 719 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2013).published 9 cites
Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1368 (“[A] finding of willfulness does not require an award of enhanced damages; it merely permits it.”); Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech.
Brandywine Commc'ns Tech., LLC v. Casio Comput. Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2012).published 2 cites
Doc. 14, p. 23; see In re Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374 (“when a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement.
Brandywine Commc'ns Tech., LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2012).published 2 cites
Doc. 17, p. 18; In re Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374 (“when a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement.
Advanced Fiber Tech. (AFT) Trust v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published 4 cites
See Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374 ("[A] willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused infringer's pre-filing conduct"). [1] Claim 1, representative of the asserted apparatus claims…
Accentra Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 851 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2011).published 2 cites
See Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1368 (“[A]n award of enhanced damages requires a showing of willful infringement.”); see also DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1317 (same).

Show 118 more citing cases

Oracle Corp. v. Druglogic, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 2d 885 (N.D. Cal. 2011).published 2 cites
(to establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its action constituted infringement of a valid patent)
iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011).published 2 cites
([S]tate of mind of the *1378 accused infringer is not relevant to [the] objective inquiry)
Goss Int'l Americas, Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (N.D. Ill. 2010).published 4 cites
See In re Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374 (“A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities [with a preliminary injunction] should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing co…
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010).published
(proof of willful infringement permitting enhanced damages requires at least a showing of objective recklessness)
Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Cal. 2010).published 9 cites
(Accordingly, we overrule the standard set out in Underwater Devices and hold that proof of willful infringement permitting enhanced damages requires at least a showing of objective recklessness ____[W]e abandon the aff…)
Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. v. Xinyi Glass North Am., Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 737 (N.D. Ohio 2010).published 2 cites
See In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d at 1368 (“[A] finding of willfulness does not require an award of enhanced damages; it merely permits it.”) “Rather, ‘the paramount determination [for enhanced damages] is the egregiousness of the def…
Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. Valueclick, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 699 (E.D. Va. 2010).published 5 cites
See In re Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374 (“A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities [by seeking a preliminary injunction] should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-fil…
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 675 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Ill. 2009).published 7 cites
(objectively-defined risk” is “determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding)
Potter Voice Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 24 F. Supp. 3d 882 (N.D. Cal. 2014).published 4 cites
See id. (“A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities in this manner should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing conduct.”).
SEB SA v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010).published 2 cites
The district court awarded SEB enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, but later vacated that award in light of this court’s decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.2007) (en banc).
Summit Indus. Supply, LLC v. Triple Crown Consulting, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00385 (S.D. Ohio July 19, 2021).
(Doc. 8 at 16 (citing In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Michigan Motor Tech. LLC v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 472 F. Supp. 3d 377 (E.D. Mich. 2020).published
In pursuit of those principles, the Federal Circuit in In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007), established a two-part test for determining whether willful infringement of a patent had occurred: first, “a patentee must sho…
Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas Elec. Am., No. 16-2121 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018).published
C The parties do not dispute that, if the jury verdict finding liability for patent infringement survives, the TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC v. RENESAS 49 ELECTRONICS AMERICA district court’s ruling denying enhanced damages under the stand…
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2017).published 3 cites
Sea-gate, 497 F.3d at 1371.
Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 259 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Tex. 2017).published
Second, the patentee had to show the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” In re Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1371.
Polara Eng'g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., 237 F. Supp. 3d 956 (S.D. Cal. 2017).published
Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1371.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2008).published
Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 692 F. Supp. 2d 487 (M.D. Pa. 2010).published
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Neb. 2008).published
Lee v. Mike's Novelties, Inc., 543 F. App'x 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2013).unpublished
Veracode, Inc. v. Appthority, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D. Mass. 2015).published
Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 780 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).published
Electro-Mech. Corp. v. Power Distrib. Prods., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 485 (W.D. Va. 2013).published
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 583 (D. Del. 2008).published
Brigham & Women's Hosp. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Del. 2010).published
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Chimei InnoLux Corp., 822 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Tex. 2011).published
Trading Tech. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010).published
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010).published
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009).published
Cohesive Tech., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008).published
Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Tech., Inc., 292 F. App'x 42 (Fed. Cir. 2008).unpublished
Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008).published
Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 260 F. App'x 284 (Fed. Cir. 2008).unpublished
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013).published
Calico Brand, Inc. v. Ameritek Imports, Inc., 527 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2013).unpublished
Cohesive Tech., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 526 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. 2007).published
Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 626 F. Supp. 2d 319 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).published
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.R.I. 2009).published
ResQNet. Com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).published
Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 562 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (W.D. Wash. 2008).published
Cordance Corp. v. Amazon. Com, Inc., 639 F. Supp. 2d 406 (D. Del. 2009).published
Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 727 (D. Del. 2009).published
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 996 (N.D. Ill. 2007).published
Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, 827 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D. Del. 2011).published
VNUS Med. Tech., Inc. v. Diomed Holdings, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2007).published
Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2007).published
Trueposition Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 568 F. Supp. 2d 500 (D. Del. 2008).published
Streck, Inc. v. Rsch. & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 988 (D. Neb. 2009).published
Iguana, LLC v. Lanham, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (M.D. Ga. 2008).published
Rhino Assocs., L.P. v. Berg Mfg. & Sales Corp., 531 F. Supp. 2d 652 (M.D. Pa. 2007).published
Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Intel Corp., 656 F. Supp. 2d 898 (W.D. Wis. 2009).published
Judkins v. Ht Window Fashions Corp., 704 F. Supp. 2d 470 (W.D. Pa. 2010).published
GSI Grp., Inc. v. Sukup Mfg. Co., 641 F. Supp. 2d 732 (C.D. Ill. 2008).published
Advanced Fiber Tech. Trust v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 348 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).published
Tesco Corp. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Tex. 2010).published
Procter & Gamble Co. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 832 (W.D. Wis. 2009).published
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 636 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2009).published
Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distrib. Ltd., 722 F. Supp. 2d 316 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).published
Riddell, Inc. v. Schutt Sports, Inc., 724 F. Supp. 2d 981 (W.D. Wis. 2010).published
Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (E.D. Cal. 2009).published
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 689 F. Supp. 2d 929 (S.D. Ohio 2010).published
Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).published
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 776 F.3d 837 (Fed. Cir. 2015).published
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 791 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015).published
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., 807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015).published
Lake Cnty. Bd. of Review v. Illinois Prop. Tax Appeal Bd., 2013 IL App (2d) 120429, 989 N.E.2d 745.published
Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Ent., Inc., 667 F. App'x 992 (Fed. Cir. 2016).unpublished
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 837 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016).published
Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 11 F. Supp. 3d 622 (E.D. Va. 2014).published
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 21 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Del. 2014).published
Abbott Biotechnology Ltd. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 163 (D. Mass. 2014).published
Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2014).published
InterMetro Indus. Corp. v. Capsa Solutions, LLC, 50 F. Supp. 3d 657 (M.D. Pa. 2014).published
Componex Corp. v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 912 (W.D. Wis. 2014).published
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp., 66 F. Supp. 3d 495 (D. Del. 2014).published
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2014).published
Courtesy Prods., L.L.C. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 3d 435 (D. Del. 2014).published
Cascades Comput. Innovation, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., 77 F. Supp. 3d 756 (N.D. Ill. 2015).published
Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLC, 101 F. Supp. 3d 800 (W.D. Wis. 2015).published
Changzhou Kaidi Elec. Co. v. Okin Am., Inc., 102 F. Supp. 3d 740 (D. Md. 2015).published
Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 632 (D. Del. 2015).published
Dane Tech., Inc. v. Gatekeeper Sys., Inc., 135 F. Supp. 3d 970 (D. Minn. 2015).published
Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Apple, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 3d 791 (W.D. Wis. 2015).published
Word to Info, Inc. v. Google Inc., 140 F. Supp. 3d 986 (N.D. Cal. 2015).published
Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., 179 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D. Del. 2016).published
PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 193 F. Supp. 3d 133 (N.D.N.Y. 2016).published
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods., Inc., 198 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2016).published
Trs. of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elec. Co., 212 F. Supp. 3d 254 (D. Mass. 2016).published
Sociedad Espanola de Electromedicina y Calidad, S.A. v. Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., 226 F. Supp. 3d 520 (W.D.N.C. 2016).published
R-BOC Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer, 233 F. Supp. 3d 647 (N.D. Ill. 2017).published
Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., 330 F. Supp. 3d 574 (D.D.C. 2018).published
Ocean Innovations, Inc. v. Ahern (In re Ahern), 541 B.R. 438 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2015).published
Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 585 F. Supp. 2d 636 (D. Del. 2008).published
Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 834 F. Supp. 2d 920 (D. Minn. 2011).published
Plumley v. Mockett, 836 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2010).published
Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 470 (D. Del. 2012).published
Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (N.D. Ala. 2012).published
Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (D. Kan. 2012).published
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 876 F. Supp. 2d 857 (S.D. Tex. 2012).published
Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P. v. Fifth Third Corp., 882 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2010).published
Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Comput. Corp., 887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011).published
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 670 F. Supp. 2d 806 (N.D. Ill. 2009).published
Aeritas, LLC v. Alaska Air Grp., Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 680 (D. Del. 2012).published
Monec Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Del. 2012).published
Voda v. Medtronic Inc., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (W.D. Okla. 2012).published
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 920 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2013).published
Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D. Conn. 2013).published
SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 480 (E.D. Tex. 2013).published
Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 983 F. Supp. 2d 713 (E.D. Va. 2014).published
Split Pivot, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 987 F. Supp. 2d 838 (W.D. Wis. 2013).published
V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Int'l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 152 (D.N.J. 2008).published
Rembrandt Vision Tech., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., 282 F.R.D. 655 (M.D. Fla. 2012).published
PB & J Software, LLC v. Acronis, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Mo. 2012).published
SiOnyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., No. 1:15-cv-13488 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 2018).
Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., No. 0:11-cv-00820 (D. Minn. July 30, 2018).

At page 1374 Determining willfulness based on pre-filing conduct47 citing caseswhen a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement. So a willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused infringer’s pre-filing conduct.3 citing courts put it this way

Aqua Shield v. Interpool Pool Cover Team, 774 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2014).published 3 cites
(A substantial question about invalidity or infringement is likely sufficient not only to avoid a preliminary injunction, but also a charge of willfulness based on post-filing conduct.)
Brandywine Commc'ns Tech., LLC v. Casio Comput. Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2012).published 2 cites
(when a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement. So a willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused in…)
Brandywine Commc'ns Tech., LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2012).published 2 cites
(when a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement. So a willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused in…)
Advanced Fiber Tech. (AFT) Trust v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published 4 cites
([A] willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused infringer's pre-filing conduct)
Goss Int'l Americas, Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (N.D. Ill. 2010).published 4 cites
(A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities [with a preliminary injunction] should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing conduct.)
Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. Valueclick, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 699 (E.D. Va. 2010).published 5 cites
(A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities [by seeking a preliminary injunction] should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing conduct.)
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 675 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Ill. 2009).published 7 cites
To the contrary, Seagate dictates that objective recklessness be determined by reference to the record developed in the infringement proceeding. 497 F.3d at 1371 (“objectively-defined risk” is “determined by the record developed in the inf…
ACCO Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Prods., Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (N.D. Cal. 2008).published
(whether a willfulness claim based on conduct occurring solely after litigation began is sustainable will depend on the facts of each case.)
01 Communique Lab'y, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 151 F. Supp. 3d 778 (N.D. Ohio 2015).published 2 cites
Under the Seagate standard, “proof of willful infringement permitting enhanced damages requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.” Id. (“[A] patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite a…
Potter Voice Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 24 F. Supp. 3d 882 (N.D. Cal. 2014).published 4 cites
See id. (“A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities in this manner should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing conduct.”).

Show 37 more citing cases

Dynatemp Int'l, Inc. v. RMS of Georgia, LLC, No. 5:20-cv-00142 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2024). 4 cites
Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1369.
Touchstream Tech., Inc. v. Altice USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00060 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2024).
No. 65 at 10-11.)) Neither Mentor Graphics nor In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) limit a plaintiff’s ability to state a claim for post-suit willfulness based on notice supplied by a complaint, as this Cour…
Probatter Sports, LLC v. Sports Tutor, Inc, 586 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D. Conn. 2022).published 2 cites
To support this position, Sports Tutor cites to In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007), where the Federal Circuit states that “[a] patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer's activities [by filing f…
Boston Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 560 F. Supp. 3d 837 (D. Del. 2021).published
Cf Jn re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., —- U.S. ——, 136 S. Ct. 1923 , 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016) (en banc) (noting that “TbJecause willful infr…
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., No. 1:19-cv-02181 (D. Del. June 21, 2021). 3 cites
Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1373.9 8.
Wash World Inc v. Belanger Inc, No. 1:19-cv-01562 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 11, 2020).
Seagate made clear that “trial courts remain free to exercise their discretion in unique circumstances to extend waiver to trial counsel, such as if a party or counsel engages in chicanery [and that] rules concerning privileges are subject…
Cascades AV LLC v. Evertz Microsystems, Ltd., No. 1:17-cv-07881 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2019).
In Halo, the Supreme Court abrogated the two-part test established in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) for consideration of enhanced damages.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2017).published 3 cites
Sea-gate, 497 F.3d at 1371.
Reedhycalog UK, Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., 251 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Tex. 2008).published
Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2008).published
LG Display Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., 722 F. Supp. 2d 466 (D. Del. 2010).published
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 583 (D. Del. 2008).published
McRo, Inc. v. Namco Bandai Games Am., Inc., 23 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2013).published
Advanced Fiber Tech. Trust v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 348 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).published
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 636 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2009).published
Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (E.D. Cal. 2009).published
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 21 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Del. 2014).published
Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Comput. Corp., 887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011).published
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 670 F. Supp. 2d 806 (N.D. Ill. 2009).published
Aeritas, LLC v. Alaska Air Grp., Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 680 (D. Del. 2012).published
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 474 (D. Del. 2010).published
Inv. Tech. Grp., Inc. v. Liquidnet Holdings, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).published
Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Eve-Usa, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017).published
Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., No. 17-2295 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2018).unpublished
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published
MyMedicalRecords, Inc. v. Jardogs, LLC, 1 F. Supp. 3d 1020 (C.D. Cal. 2014).published
Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 552 (D. Del. 2014).published
Sentius Int'l, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 78 F. Supp. 3d 967 (N.D. Cal. 2015).published
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. Silergy Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2015).published
Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 3d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2015).published
Script Sec. Solutions LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 928 (E.D. Tex. 2016).published
Dorman Prods., Inc. v. Paccar, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 663 (E.D. Pa. 2016).published
Walker Digit., LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Del. 2012).published
Apeldyn Corp. v. Sony Corp., 852 F. Supp. 2d 568 (D. Del. 2012).published
Rembrandt Soc. Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Va. 2013).published
WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 953 F. Supp. 2d 731 (S.D. Tex. 2013).published
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., 986 F. Supp. 2d 574 (W.D. Pa. 2013).published

At page 1368 Willfulness and enhanced damages under patent law30 citing cases[A] finding of willfulness does not require an award of enhanced damages; it merely permits it.2 citing courts put it this way · 29 listed here

Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 719 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2013).published 9 cites
([A] finding of willfulness does not require an award of enhanced damages; it merely permits it.)
Accentra Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 851 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2011).published 2 cites
([A]n award of enhanced damages requires a showing of willful infringement.)
Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Cal. 2010).published 9 cites
In Seagate, the Federal Circuit abandoned this approach and overruled the prior cases, concluding that a finding of willfulness “requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.” 497 F.3d at 1371 (“Accordingly, we overrule the standa…
Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. v. Xinyi Glass North Am., Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 737 (N.D. Ohio 2010).published 2 cites
([A] finding of willfulness does not require an award of enhanced damages; it merely permits it.)
Nitride Semiconductors Co. v. Lite-On Tech. Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00183 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2022).
In its response, with respect to “intentional,” Plaintiff contends that it is improper to add a mens rea requirement, as it “violates a fundamental tenet of patent law[.]” Response at 11 (citing Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566 , 1576 n.…
I4I v. Microsoft, No. 17-2107 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2010).published
I4I v. Microsoft, No. 19-1345 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2009).published
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published

Show 19 more citing cases

I4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010).published
I4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 589 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009).published
Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2008).published
Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009).published
Lee v. Accessories by Peak, 705 F. Supp. 2d 249 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).published
US Philips Corp. v. Iwasaki Elec. Co., 607 F. Supp. 2d 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).published
GSI Grp., Inc. v. Sukup Mfg. Co., 591 F. Supp. 2d 977 (C.D. Ill. 2008).published
Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 692 F. Supp. 2d 487 (M.D. Pa. 2010).published
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l Inc., 762 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2011).published
LG Display Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., 722 F. Supp. 2d 466 (D. Del. 2010).published
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Neb. 2008).published
Creative Internet Advert. Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc., 689 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Tex. 2010).published
Lee v. Mike's Novelties, Inc., 543 F. App'x 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2013).unpublished
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Wis. 2014).published
Veracode, Inc. v. Appthority, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D. Mass. 2015).published
Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 780 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).published
Paone v. Microsoft Corp., 881 F. Supp. 2d 386 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).published
Electro-Mech. Corp. v. Power Distrib. Prods., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 485 (W.D. Va. 2013).published
Square D Co. v. E.I. Elec., Inc., 264 F.R.D. 385 (N.D. Ill. 2009).published

At page 1370 Determining willful infringement based on objective recklessness15 citing cases[A]sserting the advice of counsel defense waives ... attorney-client privilege for all communications on the same subject matter, as well as any documents memorializing attorney-client communications.1 citing court put it this way

Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 894 (N.D. Ill. 2013).published 2 cites
([A]sserting the advice of counsel defense waives ... attorney-client privilege for all communications on the same subject matter, as well as any documents memorializing attorney-client communications.)
Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Cal. 2010).published 9 cites
In Seagate, the Federal Circuit abandoned this approach and overruled the prior cases, concluding that a finding of willfulness “requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.” 497 F.3d at 1371 (“Accordingly, we overrule the standa…
Christ Ctr. of Divine Philosophy, Inc. v. Elam, No. 21-01044 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. Mar. 2, 2022).
Id; Island Software and Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 263 (2nd Cir. 2005); In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Reedhycalog UK, Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., 251 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Tex. 2008).published
Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2008).published
Brigham & Women's Hosp. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Del. 2010).published
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Tgip, Inc. v. At & T Corp., 527 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Tex. 2007).published
I4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 670 F. Supp. 2d 568 (E.D. Tex. 2009).published
Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM CO., LTD., 669 F. Supp. 2d 774 (E.D. Tex. 2009).published

Show 5 more citing cases

Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd., No. 2006-0658 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2009).published
McRo, Inc. v. Namco Bandai Games Am., Inc., 23 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2013).published
Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Chimei InnoLux Corp., 822 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Tex. 2011).published
ePlus Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 472 (E.D. Va. 2013).published
Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 256 F.R.D. 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009).published

At page 1375 Limiting waiver of attorney-client and work product privilege15 citing cases[The] work product protection is qualified and may be overcome by need and undue hardship.1 citing court put it this way · 12 listed here

Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 480 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published 5 cites
Fort James Corp. v. Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citations omitted); accord In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d at 1372 (“This broad scope is grounded in principles of fairness and selves to prevent a party from simulta…
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 340 (Fed. Cl. 2008).published 2 cites
([The] work product protection is qualified and may be overcome by need and undue hardship.)
Terry L. Hamilton v. Denis McDonough, No. 22-3726 (Vet. App. May 23, 2024).published
Such information is given "nearly absolute[ ] protection." In re Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1375.
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. 15-348 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 30, 2018).published 2 cites
This rule “is grounded in principles of fairness,” In re Seagate Tech., 497 F.3d at 1372, which helps explain why the contours of a subject matter waiver depend on the circumstances giving rise to the original waiver, see Oasis Int’l Water…
Reedhycalog UK, Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., 251 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Tex. 2008).published
In re U.S., No. 2008-M885 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2009).unpublished
Vento v. Internal Revenue Serv., 714 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D.D.C. 2010).published
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008).published
Banks v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 707 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published
Gulf Grp. Gen. Enter. Co. v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 64 (Fed. Cl. 2011).published

Show 2 more citing cases

Gulf Grp. Gen. Enter. Co. W.L.L. V. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 647 (Fed. Cl. 2011).published
In re United States, 321 F. App'x 953 (Fed. Cir. 2009).unpublished

At page 1372 Privilege waiver and fairness in disclosure11 citing casesThis broad scope is grounded in principles of fairness and selves to prevent a party from simultaneously using the privilege as both a sword and a shield; that is, it prevents the inequitable result of a party disclosing favorable communications while asserting the privilege as to less favorable o…1 citing court put it this way

Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 480 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published 5 cites
(This broad scope is grounded in principles of fairness and selves to prevent a party from simultaneously using the privilege as both a sword and a shield; that is, it prevents the inequitable result of a party disclosi…)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 340 (Fed. Cl. 2008).published 2 cites
On the other hand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reminded litigants that the “[w]ork-product doctrine is not absolute.” Id. at 1301; see also In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“[…
Probatter Sports, LLC v. Sports Tutor, Inc, 586 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D. Conn. 2022).published 2 cites
To support this position, Sports Tutor cites to In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007), where the Federal Circuit states that “[a] patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer's activities [by filing f…
Plate, LLC v. Elite Tactical Sys., LLC, No. 3:18-cv-00265 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2020).
Lastly, Defendants are not “disclosing favorable communications while asserting the privilege as to less favorable ones.” In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, No. 15-348 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 30, 2018).published 2 cites
This rule “is grounded in principles of fairness,” In re Seagate Tech., 497 F.3d at 1372, which helps explain why the contours of a subject matter waiver depend on the circumstances giving rise to the original waiver, see Oasis Int’l Water…
Reedhycalog UK, Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., 251 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Tex. 2008).published
Brigham & Women's Hosp. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Del. 2010).published
Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Comput. Corp., 887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011).published
Oasis Int'l Waters, Inc. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 87 (Fed. Cl. 2013).published
Stovall v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 810 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published

Show 1 more citing case

In re Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., 250 F.R.D. 55 (D.D.C. 2008).published

At page 1369 Analyzing willfulness in patent infringement cases9 citing casesfinding that “whether or not an alleged infringer sought the advice of counsel is ‘crucial to the [willfulness] analysis.’1 citing court put it this way

Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Cal. 2010).published 9 cites
In Seagate, the Federal Circuit abandoned this approach and overruled the prior cases, concluding that a finding of willfulness “requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.” 497 F.3d at 1371 (“Accordingly, we overrule the standa…
Dynatemp Int'l, Inc. v. RMS of Georgia, LLC, No. 5:20-cv-00142 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2024). 4 cites
Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1369.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2008).published
GSI Grp., Inc. v. Sukup Mfg. Co., 591 F. Supp. 2d 977 (C.D. Ill. 2008).published
Electro-Mech. Corp. v. Power Distrib. Prods., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 485 (W.D. Va. 2013).published
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 583 (D. Del. 2008).published
Brigham & Women's Hosp. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Del. 2010).published
Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distrib. Ltd., 833 F. Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).published

At page 1367 Granting mandamus to avoid undermining privilege6 citing cases

In re US, 669 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
In re Mstg, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
In re Shukh, 485 F. App'x 437 (Fed. Cir. 2012).unpublished
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014).published
In re United States, 669 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
Reedhycalog UK, Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc., 251 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Tex. 2008).published

At page 1373 Errata correcting citations in the opinion3 citing cases

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., No. 1:19-cv-02181 (D. Del. June 21, 2021). 3 cites
Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1373.9 8.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2017).published 3 cites
Sea-gate, 497 F.3d at 1371.
Procter & Gamble Co. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 832 (W.D. Wis. 2009).published

[W]ork product protection remains available to ‘nontangible’ work product ... Otherwise, attorneys' files would be protected from discovery, but attorneys themselves would have no work product objection to depositions.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed

Trydel Rsch. Pty. Ltd. v. ITW Global Tire Repair Inc., No. 1:21-cv-04977 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2024).
([W]ork product protection remains available to ‘nontangible’ work product ... Otherwise, attorneys' files would be protected from discovery, but attorneys themselves would have no work product objection to depositions.)
Walker v. White, No. 1:16-cv-07024, 2019 WL 1953124 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2019).
([W]ork product protection remains available to ‘nontangible’ work product…Otherwise, attorneys’ files would be protected from discovery, but attorneys themselves would have no work product objection to depositions.)

hold[ing], as a general proposition, that asserting the advice of counsel defense 19 and disclosing opinions of opinion counsel do not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege 20 for communications with trial counselno pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed

Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, No. 3:19-cv-07223, 2020 WL 1922635 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020).
(hold[ing], as a general proposition, that asserting the advice of counsel defense 19 and disclosing opinions of opinion counsel do not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege 20 for communications with trial…)
Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, No. 2:20-cv-00115 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2020).
(hold[ing], as a general proposition, that asserting the advice of counsel defense 19 and disclosing opinions of opinion counsel do not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege 20 for communications with trial…)

At page 1397 The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this [first-prong] objective inquiry.1 citing case1 citing court put it this way

Tarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 867 F. Supp. 2d 534 (D. Del. 2012).published
(The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this [first-prong] objective inquiry.)

Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion

“work product protection remains available to 'nontangible' work product ... otherwise, attorneys' files would be protected from discovery, but attorneys themselves would have no work product objection to depositions.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed

Trydel Rsch. Pty. Ltd. v. ITW Global Tire Repair Inc., No. 1:21-cv-04977 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2024).
“work product protection remains available to 'nontangible' work product ... otherwise, attorneys' files would be protected from discovery, but attorneys themselves would have no work product objection to depositions.”
Walker v. White, No. 1:16-cv-07024, 2019 WL 1953124 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2019).
“work product protection remains available to 'nontangible' work product...otherwise, attorneys' files would be protected from discovery, but attorneys themselves would have no work product objection to depositions.”

“holding, as a general proposition, that asserting the advice of counsel defense 19 and disclosing opinions of opinion counsel do not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege 20 for communications with trial counsel”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed

Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, No. 3:19-cv-07223, 2020 WL 1922635 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020).
“holding, as a general proposition, that asserting the advice of counsel defense 19 and disclosing opinions of opinion counsel do not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege 20 for communications with trial co…”
Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, No. 2:20-cv-00115 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2020).
“holding, as a general proposition, that asserting the advice of counsel defense 19 and disclosing opinions of opinion counsel do not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege 20 for communications with trial co…”

Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record

LiTL LLC v. Dell Tech. Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00121 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2023).
Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., No. 6:20-cv-00018 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2022).

Treatment classes

Mentioned in passing 781

Cited as authority (rule) 313

Cited "see" 90

Cited "see, e.g." 37

Cited as authority (verbatim quote) 24

Cited as authority (quoted) 9

Compared "cf." 6

Abrogated 1

Cited "but see" 1

Treatment by court

cafc	0R/0Y/118G	348
ded	0R/0Y/51G	143
cand	0R/0Y/25G	92
ilnd	0R/0Y/44G	83
txed	0R/0Y/22G	55
uscfc	0R/0Y/29G	44
vaed	0R/0Y/11G	35
wiwd	0R/0Y/12G	26
mad	0R/0Y/15G	25
cacd	0R/0Y/11G	24
nysd	0R/0Y/11G	23
casd	0R/0Y/14G	21

Federal circuit treatment

3rd Cir.	Pos	1R/0Y/63G	64
9th Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/57G	57
7th Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/62G	62
5th Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/31G	31
2nd Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/25G	25
4th Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/28G	28
8th Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/10G	10
1st Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/17G	17
11th Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/9G	9
6th Cir.	Mix	0R/1Y/9G	10
D.C. Cir.	Pos	0R/0Y/8G	8

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…

In Re Seagate Technology, LLC

2006-M830.

Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Aug 24, 2007.

Published opinion

497 F.3d 1360

Google Scholar ↗ | CourtListener ↗

Published

8 passages pin-cited by 9 cases

Pinpoint authority: #6,927 of 633,719

Citer courts: N.D. California (2) · N.D. Illinois (2) · Federal Circuit (1) · D. Delaware (1) · N.D. Ohio (1) · E.D. Texas (1) · W.D. Texas (1)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

ERRATA

August 24, 2007

Appeal No. 06-M830

IN RE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

Precedential Opinion

Decided: August 20, 2007

In the opinion for the court, the following changes have been made:

On page 8, lines 15-16, "Quantum Corp. v. Plus Development Corp., 940 F.2d 642, 643 (Fed. Cir. 1991)" has been replaced with "Quantum Corp. v. Tandon Corp., 940 F.2d 642, 643 (Fed. Cir. 1991)".

On page 21, line 9, “patentee” has been changed to “party”.

Your account

Appearance

Create a free account

You’re in.