Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. Micron Technology, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• involving opinion letters drafted by counsel concerning whether the client’s products infringed existing patents
• “Thom effectively encourages patent attorneys to deliberately omit damaging information from their opinion letters in order to insulate their clients from a finding of willful infringement.”
• “This court does not believe that the law should encourage or reward ... the creation of opinion letters that, while facially valid, are ‘fraught with ineptitude [or] error’ in an effort to protect the client.”
• rejecting narrow waiver of work product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).