Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement
Holding that evidence relying on "25 percent rule of thumb," which was a tool used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate the manufacturer of patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation, was inadmissible under Daubert since it failed to tie a reasonably royalty base to facts of case at issue
Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis
Holding that the objective prong under Seagate was ultimately a question of law for the court, but leaving the subjective prong as a question of fact for the jury
Finding that a court may construe a term found only in the construction, and not in the claims, if the correct construction of a claim term necessitates it
Rejecting the district court's reliance on the doctrine of claim differentiation because "the presumption of scope applied to the independent claims under the doctrine of claim differentiation here does not overcome the definition from the intrinsic record"
CASE NO. 2:07-CV-21-CE (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2009) Cited 4 times
Explaining that "strong, but unsuccessful noninfringement and invalidity defenses presented during litigation weigh against a finding of objective recklessness"