Sri International, Inc. v. Advanced Technology Laboratories, Inc. And Atl Washington, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the patent owner must notify the defendant with “sufficient specificity” of its alleged infringement
• holding that letters from third parties do not constitute actual notice under Section 287(a)
• holding the communication must convey, “with sufficient specificity,” the patent holder’s belief “that the recipient of the notice may be an infringer”
• noting that a patentee may threaten suit, demand cessation of infringement or offer a license under the patent
• distinguishing the criteria for actual notice from the criteria for filing a declaratory judgment action, which requires a threat of suit
• noting that while there is no per se rule against relying on the advice of in-house counsel, counsel’s objectivity is an important factor in determining whether it was reasonable for an infringer to rely on an opinion of counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).