willful infringement, a plaintiff must make a “showing of objective recklessness.” In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2007). Whether infringement is willful is a question of fact and is determined based on the totality of the circumstances. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co., 501 F.3d 1307, 1311-12 (Fed.Cir.2007). In order to willfully infringe a patent, the alleged infringer must know of the patent, i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 860 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“Infringement is willful when the infringer was aware of the asserted patent, but nonetheless ‘acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.’ ”); Pandora Jewelry LLC v. Cappola Capital Corp., 2009 WL 2029964, *1 (M.D.Fla.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, T-Mobile argues that
holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent holding that ohio counties could be sued for patent infringement holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement holding that the objective prong for willful infringement is generally not met where an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement