patent is complex. Thus, although some presumption of deceptive intent exists when a product is knowingly marked with an expired patent, that presumption is weaker than when a product is marked with an unexpired patent that does not cover the product. ii. Whether Solo Acted With an Intent to Deceive. Because Solo admits that it knowingly marked its lids with expired patents, a weakened presumption of intent to deceive applies. However, this presumption is definitively rebutted by evidence that Solo acted not for the purpose of deceiving the public, but in good faith reliance on the advice of counsel and out of a desire to reduce costs and business disruption. A party’s good faith belief is relevant to determining whether it acted with intent to deceive. See Clontech, 406 F.3d at 1355 (<HOLDING>). In addition, good faith reliance on the
holding term good faith in iowa code section 23272 rests on a defendants subjective honest belief holding that a failure to mark 13 of products is certainly not adequate marking holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief holding that a plaintiff must show that a defendant did not have an honest good faith belief in marking its products holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law