Opinion ID: 491927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Phelon's Appeal

Text: 3 Whether the '837 patent was willfully infringed is a question of fact and, therefore, reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). See Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380, 1389, 219 USPQ 569, 576 (Fed.Cir.1983). Review of the record reveals that the infringement issue was vigorously contested and that Wabash was licensed under U.S. Patent No. 3,941,111, a patent which had been cited by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in its rejection of the initial application for the patent which reissued as the '837 patent. Under the clearly erroneous standard, to overturn a factual finding, we must have a firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the district court. Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 855 (1982). Phelon has failed to convince this court that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that, in view of the totality of the circumstances, Wabash did not willfully infringe the claims of the '837 patent and its conduct did not rise to the level to permit the award of fees under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 285 (1982). Thus Wabash failed to establish the foundation for awarding increased damages or attorney fees. Reactive Metals and Alloys Corp. v. ESM, Inc., 769 F.2d 1578, 1582-83, 226 USPQ 821, 824 (Fed.Cir.1985); King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 853, 867, 226 USPQ 402, 412 (Fed.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1197 (1986).