Apeldyn Corp. v. Sony Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in ordinary circumstances, willfulness will depend on an infringer’s prelitigation conduct. It is certainly true that patent infringement is an ongoing offense that can continue after litigation has commenced. However, when a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8, 11(b). So a willfulness claim asserted in the original complaint must necessarily be grounded exclusively in the accused infringer’s pre-filing conduct. By contrast, when an accused infringer's post-filing conduct is reckless, a patentee can move for a preliminary injunction, which generally provides an adequate remedy for combating post-filing willful infringement. A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer’s activities in this manner should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing conduct. Similarly, if a patentee attempts to secure injunctive relief but fails, it is likely the infringement did not rise to the level of recklessness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 893 F. Supp. 2d 680 - Aeritas, LLC v. Alaska Air Group, Inc.

2. “Given the ease of amendment, the limitation of damages to post-knowledge conduct, and in the interests of judicial economy, the court finds that the better reasoning is to allow a complaint that satisfies Rule 8 to proceed to discovery rather than dismissing it for lack of prefiling knowledge when, by the time the motion to dismiss has been filed, defendant in fact has the requisite knowledge as pled by plaintiff.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 935 F. Supp. 2d 772 - Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

3. “The fact that plaintiff would be prohibited from collecting damages related to indirect infringement for any pre-knowledge (e.g., pre-filing) conduct is the only substantive consequence of allowing allegations such as those at bar to go forward.”). . Notably, some of the minority view courts acknowledge that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 950 F. Supp. 2d 876 - Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.