Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge Gmbh v. Dana Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-1376.,No. 02-1221.,No. 01-1357.,No. 02-1256.,01-1357.,02-1256.,01-1376.,02-1221. |
| Citation | 344 F.3d 1336 |
| Parties | KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. DANA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, and Haldex Brake Products Corporation, and Haldex Brake Products AB, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Jeffrey D. Sanok, Crowell & Moring LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff-cross appellant. Of counsel are Michael I. Coe, Herbert I. Cantor, and Karen Canaan.
Ellen A. Efros, Rader, Fishman & Grauer, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellant Dana Corporation.
Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr., St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens, LLC, for defendants-appellants Haldex Brake Products AB and Haldex Brake Products Corporation. Of counsel are Stanley H. Lieberstein, Richard J. Basile, and Michael G. Gabriel, St. Onge Steward Johnson & Reens LLC, of Stamford, Connecticut.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MICHEL, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, reported at Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 133 F.Supp.2d 833 (E.D.Va.2001) (partial summary judgment); 133 F.Supp.2d 843 (E.D.Va.2001) (); Civ. A. No. 00-803-A (E.D.Va. Mar. 7, 2001) (); No. 00-803-A (E.D.Va. Apr. 9, 2001) (amended final judgment).
The court has sua sponte taken this case en banc to reconsider its precedent concerning the drawing of adverse inferences, with respect to willful patent infringement, based on the actions of the party charged with infringement in obtaining legal advice, and withholding that advice from discovery. See, e.g., Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir.1986) (); Underwater Devices, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380, 1389-90 (Fed.Cir.1983) ().
The parties are invited to submit additional briefs directed to this issue, with respect particularly to the following questions:
1. When the attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege is invoked by a defendant in an infringement suit, is it appropriate for the trier of fact to draw an adverse inference with respect to willful infringement?
2. When the defendant has not obtained legal advice, is it appropriate to draw an adverse inference with respect to willful infringement?
3. If the court concludes that the law should be changed, and the adverse inference withdrawn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cartier, Inc. v. Four Star Jewelry Creations, Inc.
...Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2004), 2004 U.S.App. LEXIS 19185. In the trial court Knorr-Bremse dealt with an alleged violation of plaintiff's patent on disc brakes. Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 344 F.3d 133......
-
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
...is currently reviewing whether an adverse inference should arise even in that limited context. See Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2003) (granting en banc review and asking for additional briefing on the following question of "[w]hen the at......
-
Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge v. Dana
...The parties were asked to submit additional briefing on four questions, and amicus curiae briefs were invited.2 Knorr-Bremse, 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2003) (En banc Order). We now hold that no adverse inference that an opinion of counsel was or would have been unfavorable flows from an alleg......
-
State Contracting & Eng. v. Condotte America
...AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, and REMANDED. * These circumstances distinguish this case from Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2003), in which the court has recently granted en banc review to address issues relating to the relationship ......
-
In re Seagate: did it really fix the waiver issue? A short review and analysis of waiver resulting from the use of a counsel's opinion letter as a defense to willful infringement.
...American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party at *5-6, Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (No. 01-1357), 2003 WL 23200567, available at http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/amicus_brief.doc (last visited December 20, 20......