FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 29
Advice of counsel
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel with respect to any allegedly infringed patent, or the failure of the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent or that the infringer intended to induce infringement of the patent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
35 U.S.C. § 298 (Advice of counsel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
579 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Sri Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
930 F.3d 1295 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc.
202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D. New York, 2016)
Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.
288 F. Supp. 3d 872 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2017)
Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
377 F. Supp. 3d 990 (N.D. California, 2019)
Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.
297 F. Supp. 3d 501 (D. Delaware, 2017)
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
780 F.3d 1357 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Sri International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
918 F.3d 1368 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc.
45 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2014)
Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc.
119 F.4th 948 (Federal Circuit, 2024)
Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
626 F. App'x 273 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Dali Wireless, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications LLC
(N.D. California, 2022)
Oil-Dri Corporation of America v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company
(N.D. Illinois, 2019)
Avanos Medical Sales, LLC v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.
(W.D. Tennessee, 2021)
VARTA Microbattery GmbH v. Audio Partnership LLC
(E.D. Texas, 2023)
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
(W.D. Pennsylvania, 2021)
Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc.
(D. Delaware, 2024)
PureWick Corporation v. Sage Products, LLC
(D. Delaware, 2023)
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Corporation
(Federal Circuit, 2015)
Source Credit
History
(Added Pub. L. 112–29, §17(a), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 329.)
Editorial Notes
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
Pub. L. 112–274, §1(a), Jan. 14, 2013, 126 Stat. 2456, provided that: "Notwithstanding section 35 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act [Pub. L. 112–29] (35 U.S.C. 1 note), section 298 of title 35, United States Code, shall apply to any civil action commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 14, 2013]."
Except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 112–29, section effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent issued on or after that effective date, see section 35 of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.
Effective Date
Pub. L. 112–274, §1(a), Jan. 14, 2013, 126 Stat. 2456, provided that: "Notwithstanding section 35 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act [Pub. L. 112–29] (35 U.S.C. 1 note), section 298 of title 35, United States Code, shall apply to any civil action commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 14, 2013]."
Except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 112–29, section effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent issued on or after that effective date, see section 35 of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.