Court abused its discretion by staying patent infringement case

Procter & Gamble v. Kraft Foods, 89 USPQ2d 1085 (Fed Cir 2008).  The district court abused its discretion by effectively denying [by granting Kraft Foods' motion for a stay] Procter & Gamble’s motion for a preliminary injunction without considering and balancing the required factors.

Factually flawed opinion is no help in rebutting claim of willful patent infringement

Good faith may normally be shown by obtaining the advice of legal counsel as to infringement or patent validity.  Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 828 (Fed.Cir. 1992).  If counsel’s opinion is found to be incompetent, however, a fact finder may discount its usefulness in determining a party’s good faith.  Id. at 828-829.

Consistent with Read, the Fed. Circuit held in Liquid Dynamics v. Vaughan that a noninfringement opinion written by patent counsel who was not given relevant factual information about an accused device may be discounted by a jury weighing whether to impose damages for willful infringement.