3 ms·
Yes, though it's not a bright-line test for what constitutes 'knowing' infringement. It can be less strict than the phrase suggests — if you had reason to know
by gnicholas 3y ago
Yes, though it's not a bright-line test for what constitutes 'knowing' infringement. It can be less strict than the phrase suggests — if you had reason to know of the patent, even if you had never looked at it yourself, or it can be more strict — if you infringed a patent you were aware of, but you had received three opinion letters from top law firms saying that your product didn't infringe.
I've heard some companies say that they should never put in writing that they're aware of anyone else's IP, to mitigate the risk of treble damages.
- fl0ki 3y ago> I've heard some companies say that they should never put in writing that they're aware of anyone else's IP, to mitigate the risk of treble damages. I've been instructed by a big company to take all possible notes on my own ideas and experiments, and none at all on what information I found elsewhere. I hear the opposite is true in trading, where to avoid insider trading allegations, you need notes on what publically available information you acted on, even just as "parallel construction" of the trades you were going to make based on insider information. It's really interesting the kind of world you get when legal precedent is the only unstoppable force.