Willfulness is something of a bête noir in patent law. By any objective measure, it's all but irrelevant to damages. Although 284 technically allows for up to treble damages, in practice the odds of any enhancement, even if the jury finds that infringement was willful, are no better than 10-20%.
But of course, this is not the whole story. The prevailing theory is that it is to plaintiffs' advantage to present a willfulness case in order to cast the defendant as the conniving villain rather than merely a competing manufacturer of dryer sheets or what have you. If nothing else, it makes for a more compelling narrative. And so, the parties will often devote significant resources to keep this objectively marginal issue in or out of the case.
Should all defendant's efforts to slay the issue fail, the last line of defense is typically a motion to bifurcate the issue for trial. This used to be fairly common in the District, with Judge Robinson in particular being a famous proponent of bifurcating damages and willfulness, but it's employed less frequently in recent years.
Last week, Judge Williams denied ...
