On 7/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the latest word (AFAIK, IANAL, TINLA) on the subject from the > Federal Circuit en banc, I recommend Knorr-Bremse v. Dana, > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/Fed/011357v2.html . This > ruling reversed the district court's finding of willful infringement > on very precise grounds:
Stupid me. Not reversed. Vacated and remanded. Note also that the DC didn't err in light of the applicable law at the time, it's just that the FC decided en banc that the rules of the game needed revision due to changes in the "conceptual underpinnings" of the precedents for "adverse inference". IANAL, but I would guess that the only remotely likely prospect of further weakening the "due care" standard in the foreseeable future would be to argue before the Supremes that, if it's worth breaching stare decisis on these grounds, it would be better to go even farther as argued in Judge Dyk's dissent. Personally, I would not want my financial well-being to hinge on such a test case. Oh, and while we're on the topic of the Federal Circuit and patents that should never have been granted -- does anyone know whether the district court ever ruled on remand in Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com? Looks to me like Amazon settled out of court, after losing their preliminary injunction on appeal, to avoid having the 1-Click patent invalidated altogether. But it's hard to tell without paying for a full PACER search, as the press lost interest and the Western District of Washington doesn't exactly make its files easy to search for free. Cheers, - Michael
