With the doubling of a nearly $200 million judgment, based in part on an opinion of counsel found to be incompetent, the recent case of Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore, 670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012), reminds us of the challenges in advising clients regarding the possibility of liability for patent infringement.
Clients often ask for an opinion as to whether or not they may incur liability for patent infringement upon undertaking or continuing some specified activity, such as manufacturing a new product or employing a new process. Typically, the question is asked with respect to known patents. In essence, the question is, Am I free to undertake this activity? or, Am I likely to be found liable for patent infringement? At best, answering these questions requires a careful study of the relevant facts and law and results in an opinion that assesses the probable result if and when the same question is presented to a court. A written record of the study and the opinion, generally referred to as a freedom to operate (FTO) or clearance opinion, may be requested by the client. While this entails additional expense, the written record may later become valuable as evidence of a clients good faith.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
