[U.S.] Provisur Tech v. Weber (October 2, 2024), CAFC — Willfulness
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: United States
Topics: —
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-06-25 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[U.S.] Provisur Tech v. Weber (October 2, 2024), CAFC
*Treatment of evidence concerning willful infringement
35 U.S.C. § 298 provides that an infringer's failure to obtain advice of counsel concerning alleged patent infringement, or failure to present such advice to the court or jury, cannot be used to prove willful infringement.
(1) This CAFC judgment treated the Provisur expert's testimony that “Weber did not ask a third party to evaluate the patents” as effectively equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, “advice of counsel,” and held it contrary to the purpose of § 298.
(2) The judgment held that mere awareness or monitoring of the patents was insufficient: proving willful infringement requires specific evidence showing the defendant's clear intent to engage in particular infringing conduct.
＝BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. and Indus. Rsch. Org.（CAFC, March 15, 2022）
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The source title is truncated after the word meaning willfulness; retained.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments