as a factor in the willful infringement analysis is simply not supported by the language of Seagate. See Tyco Healthcare Group, LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp., No. 06 Civ. 151, 2009 WL 5842063, at *2 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) (“neither Seagate nor [Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2004) ] hold that the trier of fact cannot take the failure to seek advice of counsel into account.”). Knorr-Bremse held that even though an adverse inference could not be drawn from the alleged infringer’s failure to obtain the advice of counsel, it also held that it was proper for the fact finder to consider the totality of circumstances. See also Franklin Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dover Corp., No. 05 Civ. 598, 2007 WL 5067678, at *8 (W.D.Wis. Nov. 15, 2007) (<HOLDING>). The Seagate court cited Knorr-Bremse with
holding that defendants failure to seek advice of counsel goes to the second component of the seagate test  what defendant knew or should have known with respect to the likelihood of infringement holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims holding the test for foreseeability is whether the wife knew or should have known of her husbands proclivities holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person