merits, see Profl Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 60, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 123 L.Ed.2d 611 (1993). A plaintiffs burden can be met by showing that the defendant had no reasonable basis to believe its patents were infringed or that it knew it was enforcing an unenforceable patent. See Golan, 310 F.3d at 1371; Zenith Elecs., 182 F.3d at 1354 (“[I]f the patentee knows that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed, yet represents to the marketplace that a competitor is infringing the patent, a clear case of bad representations is made out.”). However, simply showing that the defendant intended to divert customers from the plaintiffs business is insufficient. See Mikohn Gaming Corp. v. Acres Gaming, Inc., 165 F.3d 891, 897 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2. Evaluating Kobayashi’s Bad Faith After
holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime holding that a previous decision assuming a malpractice action was a commercial transaction for the purpose of awarding attorney fees was not binding because the court in that case was not asked  to decide whether a malpractice action involving a commercial transaction falls within the parameters of the statute holding that a competitive commercial purpose is not of itself improper holding that a  2c claim based on commercial bribery requires proof of commercial bribery holding that the commercial use requirement is not satisfied where defendants site itself had no outside links