F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.2007), the first prong of which states: [T]o establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry. Id. at 1371 (internal citations omitted). The existence of this objective risk is “determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding.” Id. The objective prong is generally not met when the accused infringer maintains a reasonable defense to infringement, even if the jury ultimately reaches a verdict of infringement. See Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that objective prong is generally not met where an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement holding that alleged infringer waived privilege with respect to all documents pertaining to the infringement of the patent holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because of overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that the objective prong of willfulness was not met where a defendants defenses were reasonable