Yes. Direct infringement is considered "strict liability." That is to say, a patent can be infringed even by someone who is unaware that the patent exists. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The plaintiff therefore does not need to prove that the defendant had an intent to infringe the patent. That being said, if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant infringed the patent willfully, that may entitle the plaintiff to enhanced monetary damages (up to three times the amount of damages that could be recovered from an innocent infringer, along with attorney fees).
By contrast, indirect infringement of a patent (i.e., induced infringement and contributory infringement, referenced in prior posts) both require awareness of the patent and knowledge of the infringing acts.
The plaintiff therefore does not need to prove that the defendant had an intent to infringe the patent. That being said, if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant infringed the patent willfully, that may entitle the plaintiff to enhanced monetary damages (up to three times the amount of damages that could be recovered from an innocent infringer, along with attorney fees).
By contrast, indirect infringement of a patent (i.e., induced infringement and contributory infringement, referenced in prior posts) both require awareness of the patent and knowledge of the infringing acts.
RSS Feed
