Protest 16779-K of Werner G. Smith Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that knowledge of an original patent does not equate to actual knowledge of even a reexamined patent
• concluding that the pleading failed to allege knowledge of a patent via willful blindness where the allegations did “not suggest that [the defendants] purposefully avoided knowledge” of the asserted patent
• holding that the fact that the accused infringer had knowledge of a patent related ! Although some of the Asserted Patents may be entitled to an earlier start date for induced infringement (see, e.g., D.I. 9 at J] 33, 74
• finding that plaintiff’s reliance on defendants’ participation in the same technologically-based industry as plaintiff, standing alone, was insufficient to establish defendants’ actual knowledge of the patent
• finding that the fact that the alleged infringer had knowledge of a related patent to the patent-in-suit was not, without more, sufficient to demonstrate a plausible claim to pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit
• assuming defendant had actual knowledge of patents-in-suit, “[allegations of marketing activities ... do not, on their own, demonstrate that Defendants knew such activities were infringing or that Defendants possessed the specific intent to encourage another’s infringement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).