Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum software has been upgraded.  New registrations are not currently permitted while we iron out any bugs and other matters.  Please report any problems you find.

Author Topic: Knorr-Bremse  (Read 1474 times)

IP_Guy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Knorr-Bremse
« on: 09-22-04 at 08:54 pm »

Considering the recent Knorr-Bremse en banc decision (Monday, Sept. 13, 2004) does anyone think that a company can get an opinion of counsel without worrying about waiver implications because the adverse inference has been eliminated?  

My understanding is that the existence of counsel is still one of the many factors that will be considered in assessing willfulness.  

If a party decides to rely upon the advice of counsel as one of the many factors (and I think almost every company will still be forced to do this or they will get slashed to pieces on cross-examination), everything underlying the opinion will be waived and the attorneys' records will be discoverable.

I do not think that Knorr solved anything.  It eliminated the adverse inference but smart attorneys will still find ways to create waiver issues because the existence of an opinion is still one of many factors to be considered.

I've had some resistance to this point of view and I am open to opinions. Please advise
Logged

Isaac

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
    • View Profile
Re: Knorr-Bremse
« Reply #1 on: 09-22-04 at 10:31 pm »

It sounds right to me.  The court said there was no negative
inference from not showing the opinion, but I don't see any
reason why a strong legal opinion that your product/process
does not infringe is not evidence that of non-willfulness.
The CAFC really did not spend much time on that issue.
Logged
Isaac

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: Knorr-Bremse
« Reply #2 on: 09-23-04 at 10:59 am »

Here's an earlier thread on that case:

http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi?board=patent_other;action=display;num=1095305358

One interesting note regarding the opinion letter:  It's best to not use your ordinary patent practitioner/firm for the opinion letter.  If you choose to waive privilege and produce the letter, it still appears after that opinion that you would waive all privilege with respect to that attorney/firm.  By using someone else, you can "contain" the waiver and maintain privilege for your own patent portfolio.

At least that's what I understand.  I don't litigate much myself.

Regards.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 18 queries.