Asserting Litigation Defenses Alone Does Not Justify Summary Judgment on Willfulness

The court denied without prejudice defendant's motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement. "The problem with the Defendant's Motion is that it seems to assume that by simply stating and presenting its defenses it has met its summary judgment burden of negating the existence of the objective prong of the [In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)] test. . . . The Court concludes that there are likely mixed questions of law and fact with regard to [defendant's] defenses, insofar as the jury should be presented the evidence to 'determine the underlying facts relevant to the defense[s]' before this Court rules on the objective prong of willful infringement. . . . [I]t is telling that according to [plaintiff], there is no evidence that [defendant] actually considered or relied on any of these now-asserted defenses before it was sued, and it was not relying on any legal advice before acting." Grant Street Group, Inc. v. Realauction.com, LLC, 2-09-cv-01407 (PAWD May 31, 2013, Order) (Hornak, J.).