“The evidence clearly showed that Weber knew about the patents, that many of their senior executives, including their CEO, had rated the patents … for relevance,” Martin said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Richard G. Taranto said that there wasn’t evidence that Weber executives’ patent rating meant that they knew their product was infringing. And Judge Moore said Weber’s awareness of the patents doesn’t mean the company was aware that its “smart loader” was infringing it.
Martin argued that the testimony from Weber executives changed as the proceeding progressed, creating a significant “credibility contest.” He also pointed to testimony from Provisur’s willfulness expert, John White, who laid out the steps that companies go through to assess a patent related to their products.
“He goes through the steps that you’d have to go through in terms of what the investigation should be to avoid infringement, and there was no testimony whatsoever that they ever had formed a good-faith belief,” Martin said. “They have no evidence with regard to whether they reasonably believe the patents are valid or invalid.”
