Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ POST-TRIAL MOTIONS; ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION; AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND.1264 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .1265 A. Defendants’ Post-Trial Motions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 & 59 .1265 1. Applicable Standards.1265 a. Standards for judgment as a matter of law.1267 b. Standards for a new trial or alteration of judgment.1268 c. Disposition of alternative motions under Rule 50(b).1269 2. Disposition of Buske’s motions.1270 a. Willful infringement.1270 i. Definition of "willfulness.1271 ii. Evidence in the record of willfulness.1272 b. Inducement.1274 e. Calculation of damages.1275 d. Summary of disposition of Buske’s post-trial motions .1277 B. Plaintiffs Motion For Entry Of Judgment, Including Prejudgment Interest .1277 1. Historical background and case law regarding prejudgment interest-1277 2. Century Wrecker’s claim of prejudgment interest.1281 a. Imposition of prejudgment interest.1282 b. Rate of prejudgment interest.1282 c. Postjudgment interest.1283 C. Enhanced Damages .1288 1. Applicable law.1283 2. Century Wrecker’s argument for enhanced damages.1286 a. Deliberate copying of Century Wrecker’s product.1286 b. Failure to investigate scope of patents.1287 e. Buske’s behavior as a party to litigation.1288 d. Buske’s size and financial condition.1288 e. Closeness of the case.1288 f. Duration of Buske’s misconduct.1289 g. Remedial action taken by Buske.1290 h. Buske’s motivation for harm.1290 3. Court’s consideration of the totality of the circumstances.1290 D. Attorney Fees and Costs.1291 1. Applicable law.1292 2. Entitlement to attorney fees and costs.1293 E. Permanent Injunction In Accordance With Verdict.1293 III. CONCLUSION.1295 BENNETT, District Judge. This post-trial opinion follows a jury verdict for the Plaintiff in this patent infringement litigation between competing industry titans in the tow truck and wrecker recovery equipment manufacturing business. Similar to the wrecker recovery industry itself, where often the work begins only after the dust settles, the jury’s verdict here, reached after eight days of trial, has generated a plethora of post-trial motions filed by each of the parties. These motions raise several nettlesome issues for the court to resolve. The court is mindful that the patent system is based on the United States Constitution and, therefore, is concerned that resolution of these post-trial issues in this case serve “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8. These concerns are raised here by post-trial motions of both parties. Plaintiff has moved for the entry of judgment, including an award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, a discretionary award from the court of treble enhanced damages, attorney fees, and costs, and an injunction precluding further infringement. Defendants have resisted these motions and have, for their part, renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, motion for new trial or alteration of judgment. Defendants’ motions seek to overturn the jury’s findings of willfulness of infringement and Defendant Earl Buske’s personal liability arising from his inducement of infringement. Defendants’ post-trial motions also vigorously attack the jury’s award of more than one million dollars in damages. In light of the jury’s categorical rejection of the entire market value rule, Defendants argue the Plaintiff failed to establish damages based on an alternate reasonable royalty theory. I. BACKGROUND In its original complaint, plaintiff Century Wrecker Corporation (“Century Wrecker”) alleged defendants E.R. Buske Manufacturing Company, E.R. Buske Distributing Company, and E.R. Buske individually (“Buske”) had violated federal patent laws by infringing two patents owned by Century Wrecker. Many of the claims and issues in this lawsuit were disposed of in a partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Century Wrecker by the court on March 15, 1995, and in a jury trial that began on October 4, 1995. However, several issues remain to be resolved in this ruling on various post-trial motions. On March 15, 1995, the court granted in part and denied in part Century Wrecker’s September 2, 1994, motion for summary judgment. The court held that Buske had infringed both the ’737 “L-arm patent” and the ’978 “underlift” patent and that the ’978 patent was sufficiently “enabling” to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, the court held that there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment in Century Wrecker’s favor on the “obviousness” of both the ’737 patent and the ’978 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the issue of whether the ’737 patent had been “anticipated” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). This matter therefore proceeded to jury trial beginning on October 4, 1995. At the conclusion of Century Wrecker’s evidence, Buske moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), and renewed this motion at the conclusion of its own evidence. The court denied Buske’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on each and every ground. On October 18, 1995, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Century Wrecker. Specifically, the jury found that Earl Buske was guilty of inducing infringement of the patents-in-suit, that each defendant had committed willful infringement, that the patents-in-suit were not invalid, and that actual damages in the case should be awarded in the amount of $1,088,457. Following the trial, on October 26, 1995, Century Wrecker filed a motion for the entry of judgment, including pre-judgment interest, and a motion for an injunction which would prohibit Buske or those in active concert with Buske from infringement of claims 1-3, 8, and 10-14 of the ’737 patent and claims 1-3 and 8 of the ’978 patent. Century Wrecker further cited specific models which would be covered by the injunction, including the Bodyguard, MD-730, MD-1030, MD-1280, and LD-5000. Also, on October 26, 1995, Century Wrecker filed a motion for enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, based on the jury’s finding of “willfulness” of the infringement, and for attorney fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, asserting that this is an “exceptional case.” On November 3,1995, Buske resisted Century Wrecker’s motion for entry of judgment, the application of pre-judgment interest, and the entry of injunction. That same date, Buske also resisted Century Wrecker’s motion for increased damages, costs, and attorney fees. In addition to its resistances to Century Wrecker’s post-trial motions, on October 27, 1995, Buske renewed its own post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, moved for a new trial or for amendment of judgment. Century Wrecker resisted Buske’s post-trial motion on November 7, 1995. On November 14, 1995, Century Wrecker filed reply briefs in further support of its post-trial motions. On December 7,1995, Buske filed a motion seeking leave to supplement its brief in support of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. On December 14, 1995, the court granted Buske’s motion to file the supplemental brief. The court heard oral arguments on the parties’ post-trial motions on December 14, 1995. At the oral arguments, Century Wrecker was represented by Edmund J. Sease, Daniel J. Cosgrove, and Jeffrey D. Harty of Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees & Sease in Des Moines, Iowa. Also present at the hearing was Frank Madonia, Vice President and General Counsel for Century Wrecker. Buske was represented by David A. Tank and Kent A. Herink of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C. in Des Moines, Iowa. Century Wrecker filed a brief in response to Buske’s supplemental brief of authorities on December 21, 1995. Buske filed a motion for leave to respond to Century Wrecker’s brief in light of a new citation on December 26, 1995. On December 28, 1995, the court granted that motion, and Buske subsequently filed a response to Century Wrecker’s resistance on January 2, 1996. With this extensive procedural background in mind, the court turns first to consideration of Buske’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motion for a new trial or amendment of judgment. If this motion is granted in whole or in part, it may obviate the need for the court to reach some or all of the numerous issues raised in Century Wrecker’s post-trial motions. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Defendants’ Post-Trial Motions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 & 59 Buske has made post-trial motions pursuant to both Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. Before proceeding to the disposition of these motions, the court will first examine with some care the standards for disposition of Buske’s post-trial motions. 1. Applicable Standards Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 provides for alternative post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or new trial, in relevant part, as follows: (a) Judgment as a MatteR of Law. (1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue. (2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. (b) Renewal of Motion foe Judgment Aftee Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. Whenever a motion for a judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence is denied or for any reason is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Such a motion may be renewed by service and filing not later than 10 days after entry of judgment. A motion for a new trial under Rule 59 may be joined with a renewal of the motion for judgment as a matter of law, or a new trial may be requested in the alternative.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) & (b). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), a litigant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law on any claim may not be entertained unless the movant previously moved for judgment as a matter of law on that claim at the close of all evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). Rockport Pharmacy, Inc. v. Digital Simplistics, Inc., 53 F.3d 195, 197 (8th Cir.1995) (post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law may not advance additional grounds not raised in pre-verdict motion); Smith v. Ferrel, 852 F.2d 1074, 1075 (8th Cir.1988) (record disclosed that no motion for “directed verdict” had been made at the close of all evidence, “appellant therefore cannot question the sufficiency of the evidence either before the district court through a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or on appeal.”); Hubbard v. White, 755 F.2d 692, 695 (8th Cir.) (motion for “directed verdict” at the close of evidence was an “essential condition precedent” to a motion for “judgment notwithstanding the verdict,” and where no such motion was made at the close of evidence, the j.n.o.v. motion was barred), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 834, 106 S.Ct. 107, 88 L.Ed.2d 87 (1985); Myers v. Norfolk Livestock Mkt., Inc., 696 F.2d 555, 558 (8th Cir.1982); see also Redd v. City of Phenix City, Ala., 934 F.2d 1211, 1214 (11th Cir.1991); Yohannon v. Keene Corp., 924 F.2d 1255, 1261 (3d Cir.1991). The motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence must assert each of the grounds subsequently relied upon in the post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. Midamar Corp. v. National-Ben Franklin Ins. Co., 898 F.2d 1333, 1337 (8th Cir.1990); Lowe v. Conlee, 742 F.2d 1140, 1141 (8th Cir.1984); see also Purcell v. Seguin State Bank & Trust Co., 999 F.2d 950, 956 (5th Cir.1993); McCann v. Texas City Refining, Inc., 984 F.2d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, a party who either fails to move for judgment as a matter of law on any claim at the conclusion of the evidence or fails to renew at that time a motion for judgment as a matter of law made earlier than the close of the evidence has waived a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), and instead must seek relief in a motion for new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. Myers, 696 F.2d at 558; see also Purcell, 999 F.2d at 956 (failure to renew motion waives right to file a post-verdict motion for judgment); McCann, 984 F.2d at 672 (motion for judgment as a matter of law made earlier than the close of evidence, but not renewed at the close of all evidence, “cannot serve as a predicate for a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”); Yohannon, 924 F.2d at 1261 (party foreclosed from pursuing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for this reason is limited at the time of post-trial motions to a motion for new trial); Riverview Inv., Inc. v. Ottawa Community Improvement Corp., 899 F.2d 474, 477 (6th Cir.) (“party seeking a judgment n.o.v. must, as a prerequisite, move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence or renew such motion if made prior to the close of all the evidence.”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855, 111 S.Ct. 151, 112 L.Ed.2d 117 (1990); Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317, 1330 (6th Cir.1988) (party who fails to renew prior motion waives the original motion and is precluded from questioning the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal). Buske made a motion for judgment as a matter of law both at the conclusion of Century Wrecker’s evidence and at the conclusion of its own case. Therefore, Buske has not waived a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, entitled “New Trials; Amendment of Judgments,” states in relevant part: (a) Gkounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues (1) in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). Because there has been some confusion in the district courts in this circuit, and because there are substantial differences in the standards to be applied under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59, the court will examine the appropriate standard to be applied under each rule. As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776 (8th Cir.1992), “it is evident that the standards for considering a motion for j.n.o.v. [now a motion for judgment as a matter of law] differ thoroughly from those governing consideration of a motion for new trial.” Pence, 961 F.2d at 779; see also Nelson v. Boatmen’s Bancshares, Inc., 26 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir.1994) (also distinguishing between the standards for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, citing Pence); Jacobs Mfg. Co. v. Sam Brown Co., 19 F.3d 1259, 1266 (8th Cir.1994) (standards for resolving motions under the two rules differ; therefore, review of evidence under one rule cannot properly sustain decision under other rule), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1251, 131 L.Ed.2d 133 (1995). The court in Pence therefore carefully delineated the difference between the appropriate standards for these two motions. Id. This court will do likewise, taking Pence as its guide. a. Standards for judgment as a matter of law In determining a motion for j.n.o.v. (and in the current parlance of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, a motion for “judgment as a matter of law’), the court in Pence observed that the question is a legal one, whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. This court must analyze the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and must not engage in a weighing or evaluation of the evidence or consider questions of credibility. See Dace v. ACF Indus., Inc., 722 F.2d 374, 375-76 (8th Cir.1983), supplemented, 728 F.2d 976 (1984). We have also stated that to sustain a motion for j.n.o.v., all the evidence must point one way and be susceptible of no reasonable inference sustaining the position of the nonmoving party. Id. at 375; Washburn v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 831 F.2d 1404, 1407 (8th Cir.1987); Brown [v. Syntex Lab., Inc.], 755 F.2d [668,] 671 [(8th Cir.1985)]. These principles have no application to the consideration of a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Pence, 961 F.2d at 779 (footnotes omitted); see also Nelson, 26 F.3d at 800 (citing these standards from Pence); First Dakota Nat’l Bank v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2 F.3d 801, 808-09 (8th Cir.1993). Thus, this standard requires the district court to: “consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, assume that the jury resolved all conflicts of evidence in favor of that party, assume as true all facts which the prevailing party’s evidence tended to prove, give the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts, and deny the motion, if in light of the foregoing, reasonable jurors could differ as to the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence.” Minneapolis Community Dev. Agency v. Lake Calhoun Assoc., 928 F.2d 299, 301 (8th Cir.1991) (quoting Atlas Pile Driving Co. v. DiCon Fin. Co., 886 F.2d 986, 989 (8th Cir.1989)); see also Nelson, 26 F.3d at 800 (reiterating these factors, citing Pence, 961 F.2d at 779); McAnally v. Gildersleeve, 16 F.3d 1493, 1500 (8th Cir.1994) (same). This standard for consideration of a motion for judgment as a matter of law accords the jury’s verdict substantial deference. Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dep’t, 28 F.3d 802, 806 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1315, 131 L.Ed.2d 196 (1995); McAnally, 16 F.3d at 1500. However, even with this deference to the jury’s verdict, the jury cannot be accorded “the benefit of unreasonable inferences, or those ‘at war with the undisputed facts,’ ” McAnally, 16 F.3d at 1500 (quoting City of Omaha Employees Betterment Ass’n v. City of Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir.1989), in turn, quoting Marcoux v. Van Wyk, 572 F.2d 651, 653 (8th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801, 99 S.Ct. 43, 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978)), but the court must still defer to the jury’s resolution of conflicting testimony. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2793, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). b. Standards for a new trial or alteration of judgment In contrast, concerning motions for new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the court in Pence observed: With respect to motions for new trial on the question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, we have stated: “In determining whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court can rely on its own reading of the evidence- — -it can ‘weigh the evidence, disbelieve witnesses, and grant a new trial even where there is substantial evidence to sustain a verdict.’ ” Ryan v. McDonough Power Equip., 734 F.2d 385, 387 (8th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). Similar language appears in Brown, 755 F.2d at 671-73; Slatton [v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co.], 506 F.2d [505,] 508 n. 4 [(8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 931, 95 S.Ct. 1657, 44 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975) ]; Bates [v. Hensley], 414 F.2d [1006,] 1011 [ (8th Cir.1969) ], and early authority cited in Bates. See also Leichihman v. Pickwick Int’l, 814 F.2d 1263, 1266 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 855, 108 S.Ct. 161, 98 L.Ed.2d 116 (1987). These cases establish the fundamental procedures or methodology to be applied by the district court in considering new trial motions and are in contrast to those procedures governing motions for j.n.o.v. Id. at 780. Thus, the court in Pence concluded the district court may grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, if the first trial results in a miscarriage of justice. Id.; see also Shaffer v. Wilkes, 65 F.3d 115, 117 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Pence for this standard); Rush v. Smith, 45 F.3d 1197, 1203 (8th Cir.) (also citing Pence for this standard), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 409, 133 L.Edüd 328 (1995); Nelson, 26 F.3d at 800 (“[A] motion for a new trial should be granted if, after weighing the evidence, a district court concludes that the jury’s verdict amounts to a miscarriage of justice.”); Jacobs Mfg. Co., 19 F.3d at 1266 (correct standard for new trial is conclusion that “the [jury’s] verdict was against the ‘great weight’ of the evidence, so that granting a new trial would prevent a miscarriage of justice.”). Although the district court’s grant or denial of a motion for new trial is accorded “great deference,” and will be reversed “only upon a strong showing of abuse,” the district court’s discretion “is not boundless.” Shaffer, 65 F.3d at 118 (citing for the “great deference” standard, Brown v. Syntex Labs., Inc., 755 F.2d 668, 673 (8th Cir.1985), and for the standard for reversal, King v. Davis, 980 F.2d 1236, 1237 (8th Cir.1992)); see also Nelson, 26 F.3d at 800 (review of denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion); TEC Floor Carp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4 F.3d 599, 602 (8th Cir.1993) (review is for abuse of discretion); Fink v. Foley-Belsaw Co., 983 F.2d 111, 115 (8th Cir.1993) (grant or denial of new trial on the basis that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence is “ ‘virtually unassailable on appeal,’ ” quoting Bissett v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 969 F.2d 727, 730 (8th Cir.1992)); Morgan v. City of Marmaduke, 958 F.2d 207, 210-11 (8th Cir.1992) (review is for abuse of discretion). First, the district court’s discretion is bounded in review and reassessment of the evidence: [T]he district court cannot simply “reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.” [Pence, 961 F.2d] at 780, citing, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Aalco Wrecking Co., 466 F.2d 179, 186 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 930, 93 S.Ct. 1371, 35 L.Ed.2d 592 (1973). Shaffer, 65 F.3d at 118 (but district court in that case had properly rejected the testimony of one party’s witness, and accepted that of a witness for the opposing party, to come to a conclusion contrary to that of the jury concerning which party breached a contract). Hence, “when the evidence is such that reasonable persons could differ as to the result, such as a direct conflict in credible and plausible evidence, the determination is properly left to the jury.” Rush, 45 F.3d at 1203 (citing Pence, 961 F.2d at 781, which in turn cites Aalco Wrecking Co., 466 F.2d at 187). To weigh testimony properly, the court must find testimony supporting the verdict unworthy of belief or find “a significant weight factor” favoring contrary testimony; it may not simply find the testimony supporting the verdict at odds with other evidence, then decide that “a reasonable jury could not fairly conclude” that an element of the plaintiffs claim has or has not been proved. Jacobs Mfg. Co., 19 F.3d at 1267 (citing Pence, 961 F.2d at 781). Rather, the evidence supporting the verdict must be found by the court not to be credible or the court must find that evidence can be “otherwise properly re-jeet[ed].” Id. The district court’s discretion is further bounded by the requirement that it must articulate the reasons for its conclusion that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. Shaffer, 65 F.3d at 118; Jacobs Mfg. Co., 19 F.3d at 1266 (it is inadequate for court to state “for all of the reasons previously discussed” as ground for granting new trial, particularly if the reasons previously discussed were in relation to a motion for judgment as a matter of law, because standards for resolving the two kinds of motions differ); Pence, 961 F.2d at 781; Washburn v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 831 F.2d 1404, 1409 (8th Cir.1987). However, the court properly exercises its discretion, for example, when the articulated reasons include the court’s conviction that, given the evidence presented at trial, the jury “either did not truly understand what it was necessary for [the plaintiff] to show, or if it did understand, decided to [render a verdict for or against the plaintiff] in spite of the facts and law.” Shaffer, 65 F.3d at 118 (quoting the district court’s conclusion). c. Disposition of alternative motions under Rule 50(b) As a further matter, Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(b), which specifically provides for Buske’s fifing of an alternative motion for new trial with the renewal of its motion for judgment as a matter of law made during trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a), also explains how the court is to resolve the alternative motions. The rule provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A motion for a new trial under Rule 59 may be joined with a renewal of the motion for judgment as a matter of law, or a new trial may be requested in the alternative. If a verdict was returned, the court may, in disposing of the renewed motion, allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law. FedRCiv.P. 50(b). In this case, a verdict was indeed returned. As the court reads this rule, the court’s ultimate disposition of Buske’s alternative motions will either allow the verdict to stand or will instead reopen the case. If the court allows the verdict to stand, it will obviously deny both of Buske’s alternative motions. However, pursuant to this rule, if the court overturns the jury verdict, the court must do so by making one of two possible dispositions of the case: it must either order a new trial or must instead direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law. Thus, although the rule provides for alternative post-trial motions by a party dissatisfied with a jury verdict, the court cannot make alternative dispositions, granting both post-trial motions in the alternative. Instead, the court must grant only one of the alternative motions, either the motion for new trial or the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). With these principles in mind concerning the standards for resolving post-trial motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59, the court turns to an examination of the evidence introduced at trial in support of and in defense to Century Wrecker’s claims to determine whether post-trial relief from the jury’s verdicts against Buske is appropriate. 2. Disposition of Buske’s motions Buske bases its post-trial motions on three grounds: (1) that there was insufficient evidence of willfulness to justify submission of that issue to the jury; (2) that there was insufficient evidence of Earl Buske’s personal liability to justify submission of that issue to the jury; and (3) that Century Wrecker failed to provide the jury a “reasonable basis” upon which to calculate damages, a failure which Buske argues entitles it to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of damages. In response, Century Wrecker contends that the jury’s conclusion that the infringement on the part of Buske was willful is supported by the clear evidence of record. Also, Century Wrecker maintains that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Buske personally induced infringement of the patents-in-suit. Lastly, Century Wrecker argues that the jury’s determination of damages in the amount of $1,088,547 is based on substantial evidence in the record. The court will address seriatim each of the grounds upon which Buske’s motions are based. a. Willful infringement In its motions, Buske claims the jury verdict regarding the issue of willfulness was not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. To support this claim, Buske argues it began producing and selling the devices at issue before Century Wrecker’s patents were issued. Buske further alleges it had a reasonable basis for believing it had a legal right to produce and sell the patented devices and for believing Century Wrecker’s patents were invalid. Buske cites in support of its beliefs concerning invalidity what came to be known in this litigation as “the Zachovich story,” and additionally points to the “Lister patent.” Buske argues that the reasonableness of its opinion on invalidity is further bolstered by Century Wrecker’s own reliance on “the Zackovich story.” Based on the evidence in the record, Buske asserts that the issue of willfulness was, in fact, a close question, and the jury’s finding of willfulness was inappropriate. In response, Century Wrecker disputes the issues raised by Buske, arguing the jury’s finding of willfulness is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. In its brief, Century Wrecker points to several examples of testimony in the record to support its argument. First, Century Wrecker contends that both Michael Sturm, Buske’s patent expert, and the models in evidence suggest Buske deliberately copied Century Wrecker’s L-arms and underlifts. In addition, Century Wrecker maintains Buske failed to investigate the validity of the patent when faced with inconsistent statements from Ed Zackovich regarding Zacko-vich’s acquisition of a patent for the L-arm device. Also, Century Wrecker argues that despite the fact that the Zackovich story was ultimately revealed as a fraud, Buske continued to infringe, not because of a belief that the patents were not infringed, but because the product was profitable. Century Wrecker further claims that Buske could not have possessed a good-faith and reasonable belief that it did not infringe because Buske produced no evidence indicating that reliance on the opinion of counsel was either in “good faith” or “reasonable.” In fact, Century Wrecker asserts the only evidence relating to a legal opinion regarding infringement showed that Buske ignored patent counsel’s opinion, and Century Wrecker further characterizes Buske’s inability to recall the content of the legal opinions it received as proof of bad faith. Lastly, Century Wrecker argues that, whereas it had no affirmative duty to investigate the Zackovich story, Buske did have such an affirmative obligation to exercise due care in determining the validity of the patents once it had been charged with infringement of Century Wrecker’s patents. Century Wrecker asserts that Buske’s failure to satisfy this duty, coupled with Century Wrecker’s ease in exposing Zackovieh’s fraud, provides ample support for the jury’s finding of willfulness. These arguments must be analyzed in light of a substantial body of case law concerning “willfulness.” i. Deñnition of willfulness Willfulness is a question of fact and involves a determination as to an infringer’s state of mind. Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1221 (Fed. Cir.1995) (willfulness is a question of fact that involves elements of intent, reasonableness, and belief); Graco, Inc. v. Binks Mfg. Co., 60 F.3d 785, 792 (Fed.Cir.1995) (same); Electro Medical Sys., S.A v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed.Cir.1994); Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 828 (Fed.Cir.1992); Stickle v. Heublein, Inc., 716 F.2d 1550, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1983) (intent and reasonable beliefs are the primary focus of a willful infringement inquiry). Specifically, in determining the question of willfulness, the primary consideration is whether the infringer acted in disregard of the infringed patent with no reasonable basis to believe it had a right to do the acts in question. Pall Corp., 66 F.3d at 1221 (fact-finder should examine whether the infringer deliberately disregarded the property rights of the patentee); Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Smith, 959 F.2d 936, 944 (Fed.Cir.1992) (the focus of a willfulness inquiry should be on whether the infringer had no reasonable belief for thinking it had a legal right to continue its conduct). One who has actual notice of a patent owner’s rights has an affirmative duty to respect those rights. Read Corp., 970 F.2d at 828 (citing Rolls-Royce, Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109 (Fed.Cir.1986)); Avia Group, Int’l, Inc. v. L.A Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1566 (Fed.Cir.1988). In addition, willfulness must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Pall Corp., 66 F.3d at 1221 (willfulness warrants a clear and convincing standard because it is a punitive finding and can result in the multiplication of damages); Electro Medical Sys., S.A., 34 F.3d at 1056; Amsted Indus., Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 181 (Fed.Cir.1994). In establishing willfulness, there are no definitive rules regarding willfulness or precise factors indicative of willfulness. Graco, Inc., 60 F.3d at 792; Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1279 (Fed.Cir.1995); American Medical Sys., Inc. v. Medical Eng’g Corp., 6 F.3d 1523, 1530 (Fed.Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1647, 128 L.Ed.2d 366 (1994). Rather, willfulness is determined by the totality of the circumstances. Graco, Inc., 60 F.3d at 792; Transmatic, Inc., 53 F.3d at 1279; American Medical Sys., Inc., 6 F.3d at 1530. In Bott v. Four Star Corp., 807 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds, A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed.Cir.1992), the Federal Circuit discussed some relevant factors to support a finding of willfulness, namely, (1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; (2) whether the infringer, when it knew of the other’s patent protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good-faith belief that the patent was invalid or that it was not infringed; and (3) the infringer’s behavior as a party to the litigation. Read Corp., 970 F.2d at 826-28 (citing Bott v. Four Star Corp., 807 F.2d 1567, 1572). Among the additional circumstances that might indicate the presence of willfulness are (4) a defendant’s size and financial condition; (5) the closeness of the case; (6) the duration of the defendant’s misconduct; (7) remedial action by the defendant; (8) the defendant’s motivation for harm; and (9) whether the defendant attempted to conceal its misconduct. Read Corp., 970 F.2d at 826-28. One of the relevant factors in determining willfulness involves the infringer’s actions taken to comply with its “affirmative duty to exercise due care to determine whether or not [it] is infringing.” Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 717 F.2d 1380, 1389-90 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also Electro Medical Sys., S.A., 34 F.3d at 1056; Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (citing Rolls-Royce, Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109 (Fed.Cir.1986)). This affirmative duty typically involves obtaining advice of legal counsel, although the absence of such advice does not automatically warrant a finding of willfulness. See Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 1428 (Fed.Cir.1988); Spindelfabrik Suessen-Schurt v. Schubert & Salzer, 829 F.2d 1075, 1084 (Fed.Cir.1987); Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 882, 93 L.Ed.2d 836 (1987). A critical factor in evaluating the effect of an opinion of counsel on willfulness of patent infringement is the reasonableness of the party’s reliance thereon. See Amsted Indus., Inc., 24 F.3d at 181 (the focus of evaluation should be on the nature of the opinion and the effect it had on the infringer’s action); American Medical Sys., Inc., 6 F.3d at 1530. The inference that an opinion of an attorney rendered prior to the conduct of the infringer was unfavorable does not preclude the consideration of other relevant factors, as set out in Read Conp., in determining whether infringement was willful. Electro Medical Sys., S.A., 34 F.3d at 1056. Having identified the applicable factors, the court turns to consideration of the evidence of “willfulness” upon which the jury made its determination. it. Evidence in the record of willfulness In examining the evidence of record, the court first looks at the deliberate nature of Buske’s conduct. Read Corp., 970 F.2d at 826-28; Bott, 807 F.2d at 1572. Both the court and the jury had the opportunity to view both Century Wrecker’s and Buske’s full-scale models of the L-arm and the under-lift assemblies to which the patents in suit pertain. The models are so conspicuously similar that, merely by viewing this evidence, the jury could have readily inferred that Buske copied Century Wrecker’s device. Furthermore, in his cross-examination of Buske’s expert witness, Michael Sturm, Century Wrecker’s counsel, Edmund Sease, posed the following hypothetical to Sturm: Assume the evidence shows that before Defendants’ structure was commercialized, Defendant had prior access to Century Wrecker’s unit in the marketplace; had prior access to brochures; that when Defendants heard about this product said “we’d better follow suit;” and that the reason they built the device was because they were “inspired by the marketplace”— would that indicate circumstantial factors of copying? In response to this hypothetical, Sturm conceded that the evidence detailed in the hypothetical, assuming it was trae, would indicate circumstantial evidence of copying. The testimony at trial established precisely the same evidence detailed in the hypothetical posed to Sturm. Earl Buske testified that he had viewed Century Wrecker’s wheel lift before he developed Buske’s BodyGuard; Earl Buske had access to brochures; and upon hearing about Century Wrecker’s introduction of its wheel lift, his response was “to get to'work and follow suit.” In addition, Chuck Buske testified that the Buske companies’ production was inspired by market demand. Based on the testimony of Earl Buske, Chuck Buske, and Michael Sturm, as well as the models in evidence, the court concludes that the evidence readily suggests that Buske deliberately copied Century Wrecker’s L-arms and under-lifts. Thus, the evidence does not “point one way,” Buske’s way, and is not “susceptible of no reasonable inference sustaining the position of’ Century Wrecker. Pence, 961 F.2d at 779. Instead, it is manifestly apparent that a reasonable inference of deliberate copying, sustaining Century Wrecker’s position on “wilfulness,” can be drawn from the evidence. Id. In these circumstances, judgment as a matter of law in Buske’s favor cannot be granted. Id. Also, because the court finds that such an inference is in keeping with, not contrary to, the great weight of the evidence, the court will not grant Buske’s alternative motion for a new trial. Id. at 780. Furthermore, in analyzing Buske’s alleged failure to investigate the scope of Century Wrecker’s patents, the evidence in the record indicates that the only legal opinions Buske allegedly received were oral and that Earl Buske cannot recall the content of those opinions. The jury could have found that Buske’s vagueness regarding the legal opinions he had received did not lend credence to his alleged good-faith, reasonable belief that Century Wrecker’s patents were invalid. Thus, the'court concludes that the evidence submitted at trial regarding Buske’s alleged failure to investigate the scope of the patents, coupled with the evidence relating to the deliberate nature of Buske’s conduct, again do not point only one way, Buske’s way, requiring judgment as a matter of law in Buske’s favor. Id. at 779. Such evidence also lends to the greater weight of the evidence in favor of the jury’s verdict, also making a new trial inappropriate. Id. at 780. However, the court is not persuaded that the question of Buske’s willfulness is as one-sided as Century Wrecker suggests. In fact, while the court finds there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of willfulness, the court believes there was also substantial evidence to support a jury’s opposite conclusion, had the jury found that Buske’s conduct was not willful. Century Wrecker asserts that Buske failed its affirmative duty to investigate the scope of Century Wrecker’s patents; however, the existence and extent of Buske’s good-faith reliance has significant support in the record. Century Wrecker maintains that Buske’s reliance on the Zackovich story, which Century Wrecker claims it “easily” exposed as untrue, is indicative of bad faith and must be construed as a failure to investigate the scope of Century Wrecker’s patents. The court, is not convinced that Buske’s reliance on the Zackovich story was so misguided as to constitute a failure to investigate the scope of Century Wrecker’s patents or evidence of willful conduct. In fact, Century Wrecker itself relied on the Zackovich story in pleadings filed in an independent lawsuit between Century Wrecker and Zackovich. Thus, the court does not believe that Century Wrecker’s alleged ease in uncovering the truth behind the Zacko-vich story should serve as the barometer for determining Buske’s alleged failure to investigate the scope of Century Wrecker’s patents. Likewise, even though Buske relied solely on oral opinions of counsel and could not recall the content of the legal opinions that he received, he never wavered from his testimony that such oral opinions did, in fact, exist, and that those opinions formed the basis for his good-faith belief that Century-Wrecker’s patents were invalid. Further support of Buske’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of Century Wrecker’s patents can be found in Sturm’s testimony, because Sturm opined that Century Wrecker’s L-arm patent was invalid based on the Lister patent. Thus, particularly considering the existence of the Lister patent, the court believes a trier of fact could have reasonably concluded that Century Wrecker’s patents were invalid. This conclusion that reasonable jurors could differ as to the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence only confirms the inappropriateness of judgment as a matter of law in Buske’s favor. Minneapolis Community Dev. Agency, 928 F.2d at 301. While the court finds clear and convincing evidence to support the jury’s finding of willfulness, it also finds sufficient contrary evidence to make the court’s determination of which way the greater weight of the evidence lies less than obvious when the court considers Buske’s alternative motion for a new trial. Nonetheless, the court finds the balance tips in favor of letting the jury’s verdict stand and will not grant a new trial on this issue. Pence, 961 F.2d at 780. b. Inducement As its second ground for post-trial relief, Buske asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that Earl Buske was personally liable for inducing infringement. Buske claims Century Wrecker did not generate a material issue regarding Earl Buske’s intent to induce infringing conduct, or that he had actual knowledge that he was infringing Century Wrecker’s patents. Buske alleges that Earl Buske lacked the intent required to be “culpable” because he relied on the advice of counsel. On the other hand, Century Wrecker argues the evidence establishes that Earl Buske was the moving, active, and conscious force behind the infringement by the Buske corporations. Century Wrecker also asserts that Earl Buske did not introduce any evidence that would have permitted the jury to conclude that the legal opinions Earl Buske received were both reasoned and competent. The United States Code provides for imposition of personal liability upon a corporate officer for “inducing infringement” in 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Liability for inducement is dependent upon the existence of direct infringement, see, e.g., Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed.Cir.1990), which, in this case, the court found had occurred when it granted Century Wrecker’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to this section, the patent owner has the burden of establishing an alleged infringer “knowingly induced infringement.” Id. For an opinion of counsel to be a defense to personal liability for inducement, the opinion must be both reasoned and competent. Read Corp., 970 F.2d at 829. In addition, if an infringer chooses to withhold disclosure of the advice of counsel, the fact-finder can draw a negative inference about that opinion. American Medical Sys., Inc., 6 F.3d at 1531; L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1126 (Fed.Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 291, 126 L.Ed.2d 240 (1993); Kloster Speedsteel AB, 793 F.2d at 1580. These are the legal standards for “inducement” in light of which the court must consider the evidence presented to the jury at trial. Several facts in the record provide circumstantial evidence of Earl Buske’s intent to infringe Century Wrecker’s patents, including the fact that Earl Buske was president of both the manufacturing and distributing companies; he was the majority shareholder of defendant Buske Manufacturing and controlled the majority of shares of defendant Buske Distributing; and he was the chairman of the board of both defendant companies. Also, Earl Buske helped design the wheel lift that infringed Century Wrecker’s patent; he decided to make the L-arms; he approved the change to the L-arms; and he approved all design changes to Buske’s devices. Also, although Earl Buske claims he relied on reasonable opinions from counsel and thus is not personally liable for inducement, there was evidence in the record indicating he could not recall the content of these legal opinions. The providers of these legal opinions could have testified as to the content of these opinions and neglected to do so; this absence of testimony could have created a negative inference and led the jury to believe Buske did not reasonably rely on the advice of counsel. Just as the factfinder is entitled to draw a negative inference about the opinion of counsel when the opinion itself is withheld by the alleged infringer, American Med. Sys., 6 F.3d at 1531, the court believes the jury was entitled to draw a negative inference from Earl Buske’s inability to articulate what advice he had received from counsel. In addition, the alleged legal opinions upon which Buske claimed to rely were oral, and Buske did not know if the providers of the opinions reviewed the file history, references in the file history, or references not cited by the examiner. Based on these facts in the record, the jury could have concluded that Buske did not reasonably rely on competent opinions of counsel and therefore did, in fact, induce infringement. The court finds that the greater weight of the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Earl Buske induced infringement of Century Wrecker’s patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), and Buske’s motion for new trial must be denied. Pence, 961 F.2d at 780. This same evidence demonstrates that the evidence does not point all one way, Buske’s way, such that judgment as a matter of law in Buske’s favor would be appropriate. Id. at 779. Therefore, Buske’s alternative motions for post-trial relief from the jury’s verdict of inducement of infringement must also be denied. c. Calculation of damages Lastly, Buske argues it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of damages because the evidence presented by Century Wrecker concerning damages is based upon an inapplicable theory of damages and is thus irrelevant. This issue is the most troublesome of the three issues raised by Buske in its motion seeking to overturn the jury verdict. Buske argues Century Wrecker’s expert witness, Dr. Newkirk, based his damages calculations, including the determination of a reasonable royalty, upon the “entire market value rule.” However, in response to a special interrogatory, the jury rejected the entire market value rule, and instead calculated damages in favor of Century Wrecker based solely upon a reasonable royalty for the patented assemblies alone. Because the jury found the entire market value rule was inapplicable, Buske argues that Dr. Newkirk’s testimony regarding a reasonable royalty calculation is irrelevant. Therefore, Buske asserts the damages award must be vacated. Century Wrecker, on the other hand, maintains that although Dr. Newkirk did, in fact, rely on the entire market value rule, he nonetheless testified as to how damages could be calculated using other methods and gave the jury numbers upon which to base alternative damages calculations. Furthermore, Century Wrecker asserts the reasonable royalty range Dr. New-kirk offered at trial related to the time of infringement, and was not an after-the-fact assessment. Therefore, his testimony was not irrelevant and the damages award should not be vacated. In its supplemental brief of authorities, Buske relies on Unisplay, S.A. v. American Electronic Sign Co., Inc., 69 F.3d 512 (Fed. Cir.1995). In Unisplay, the Federal Circuit vacated an award of damages because it was based on an inapplicable theory of damages and was unsupported by relevant evidence in the record. Id. Specifically, the court held that a reasonable royalty rate as determined by the factfinder must be supported by relevant evidence in the record. Id. Furthermore, “a reasonable royalty determination for purposes of making a damages evaluation must relate to the time infringement occurred, and not be an after-the-fact assessment.” Id. (citing Hanson v. Alpine Ski Area, Inc., 718 F.2d 1075, 1079 (Fed.Cir.1983)). In Unisplay, the court vacated the award of damages because the plaintiffs expert did not focus his testimony regarding a reasonable royalty on the time of infringement; rather, the plaintiffs expert testified about what royalty rate the parties might arrive upon at the time of trial. Id. Here, although Dr. Newkirk did rely on the entire market value theory, Dr. Newkirk also presented the jury with calculations of damages under other methods. Dr. Newkirk complied with the requirements of Unisplay in that during his testimony, he provided a royalty rate methodology premised upon a determination at the proper time — when infringement commenced. Therefore, the fact that the Federal Circuit in Unisplay vacated an award of damages based upon an after-the-fact assessment of the reasonable royalty rate should not necessarily mandate entry of judgment as a matter of law contrary to the jury’s verdict. In determining a reasonable royalty, the jury is not restricted to a specific figure offered by one of the parties; rather, the award must be within the range covered by the record as a whole. Unisplay, 69 F.3d at 512 (citing SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir.1991)). In addition, the jury can also consider the sales of unpatented goods in its reasonable royalty evaluation. See Comair Rotron Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 31 F.3d 1177, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1785, 1790, 1994 WL 381809 at *6 (Fed.Cir.1994) (rejection of the entire market value rule does not preclude consideration of the “inherent benefits of the claimed invention” in assessing the reasonable royalty); see also Dr. Newkirk’s report, pp. 6-18. Dr. Newkirk’s royalty base was comprised of both patented and unpat-ented components, and he opined that the proper royalty range was ten percent to twenty percent. While Dr. Newkirk’s royalty base was not chosen by the jury, that fact alone should not render his opinion regarding a reasonable royalty range irrelevant. The jury apparently used a reasonable royalty rate of ten percent, the lowest end of Dr. Newkirk’s reasonable royalty range. The ten percent figure was provided by Dr. New-kirk, and Buske offered no evidence to contest this figure. Furthermore, Mary Ann Buske testified on direct examination that Buske’s total sales of the L-arms and the under-lifts was $10,884,573. Based on the amount of damages awarded, the jury apparently used Mrs. Buske’s calculation of Buske’s sales as the royalty base of $10,884,-573. Thus, the jury apparently used the plaintiff’s reasonable royalty range and the defendants’ royalty base to calculate a damages award in favor of Century Wrecker. The entire market value rule and reasonable royalty are two different rules for determining damages. See Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1555 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc) (where the application of the entire market value rule was reversed, the determination of reasonable royalty rate was affirmed), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 184, 133 L.Ed.2d 122 (1995). Thus, the court does not believe that the jury’s reliance on Century Wrecker’s uncontested royalty range and Buske’s royalty base should warrant a judgment as a matter of law on the damages award. The focus, as the Federal Circuit articulated in Unisplay, is the requirement of a factual basis for a determination of a reasonable royalty, relating to the time the infringement occurred. Unisplay, 69 F.3d at 512. The court is not persuaded to interpret Unisplay as precluding a plaintiffs recovery of damages merely because the plaintiffs expert witness relied on a particular theory which the jury later found inapplicable. Here, the jury’s apparent adoption of both the royalty range and the royalty base are supported by the record as a whole. Despite the inapplicability of the entire market value rule, the jury in this case had a factual basis for determining the ten percent reasonable royalty. Therefore, the court concludes that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s calculation of damages, and the jury’s ultimate calculation is within the range encompassed by the record as a whole. Thus, on this issue, as well as on the other two presented in Buske’s alternative post-trial motions, the court concludes that no relief can be granted. The evidence on royalties does not point all one way, Buske’s way, and judgment as a matter of law contrary to the jury’s verdict is therefore inappropriate. Pence, 961 F.2d at 779. d. Summary of disposition of Buske’s post-trial motions The court concludes that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s findings regarding willfulness, inducement, and damages, and that all of the evidence does not point in Buske’s favor; rather, the evidence is indeed susceptible of a reasonable inference sustaining Century Wrecker’s position on each issue. Pence, 961 F.2d at 779. Although the court considers the jury’s finding on willfulness to be a close question and believes that “reasonable jurors could differ as to the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence,” the latter conclusion requires the court to deny Buske’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 50. Minneapolis Community Dev. Agency, 928 F.2d at 301 (quoting Atlas Pile Driving Co., 886 F.2d at 989). In the alternative, Buske moved for new trial or alteration of judgment on the issues of willfulness and inducement. When a party files a motion to amend a judgment or grant a new trial, the district court must determine whether the jury’s verdict is against clear or great weight of the evidence. Unisplay, 69 F.3d at 512; Shaffer, 65 F.3d at 117; Rush, 45 F.3d at 1203; Nelson, 26 F.3d at 800; Jacobs Mfg. Co., 19 F.3d at 1266; Pence, 961 F.2d at 780. Here, the jury’s finding of Buske’s willfulness in' infringing Century Wrecker’s patents was not against the greater weight of the evidence. Also, the jury’s finding regarding Earl Buske’s inducement of the infringement was supported by both circumstantial evidence of Earl Buske’s control over and status within the defendant corporations, as well as evidence regarding the legal opinions he allegedly relied upon in this case. In consideration of the evidence on these issues, as well as the evidence in the record as a whole, the court concludes the jury’s verdict in this case is not against clear or greater weight of the evidence. Thus, Buske’s alternative motion for new trial or alteration of judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 59 is also denied. Having disposed of Buske’s post-trial motions, the court turns next to the examination and disposition of Century Wrecker’s post-trial motions, beginning with Century Wrecker’s motion for entry of judgment, including prejudgment interest. B. Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry Of Judgment, Including Prejudgment Interest Because the court has denied Buske’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and its motion for new trial or alteration of judgment, the court grants Century Wrecker’s motion for entry of judgment in its favor. However, the issue of whether prejudgment interest should be awarded involves a more detailed analysis of the statute and case law. Thus, before proceeding to the parties’ arguments concerning whether the entry of judgment should include an award of prejudgment interest, the court first examines the historical background and applicable law governing the issue of prejudgment interest in the context of patent law. 1. Historical background and case law regarding prejudgment interest In General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 103 S.Ct. 2058, 76 L.Ed.2d 211 (1983), the United States Supreme Court established a new standard regarding prejudgment ' interest in the context of patent infringement cases. In reaching its decision in Devex, the Court reviewed the background and history of prejudgment interest in the context of patent infringement cases which precipitated the Court’s change in the standard. Prior to 1946, the statutory provision governing a plaintiffs recovery in a patent infringement suit did not contain a reference to prejudgment interest. Devex, 461 U.S. at 651, 103 S.Ct. at 2060. Rather, a common-law standard articulated by the Supreme Court governed the award of prejudgment interest in patent infringement cases. See id. (citing Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co., 298 U.S. 448, 56 S.Ct. 792, 80 L.Ed. 1274 (1936) (awarding prejudgment interest from the date on which damages were liquidated, and from the date of infringement in the absence of liquidation only in “exceptional circumstances,” i.e. bad faith); Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 8 S.Ct. 894, 31 L.Ed. 664 (1888)). In 1946, Congress amended the statutory provisions governing recovery in patent infringement cases. See id. (citing Act of Aug. 1, 1946, § 1, 60 Stat. 778, 35 U.S.C. §§ 67, 70 (1946 ed.)). In Devex, the Court examined 35 U.S.C. § 284 and its effect on the former common-law standard governing prejudgment interest in patent infringement cases. Specifically, the Court stated [W]e have little doubt that § 284 does not incorporate the Duplate standard. Under that standard, which evolved as a matter of federal common law, prejudgment interest could not be awarded where damages were unliquidated, absent bad faith or other exceptional circumstances. By contrast, § 284 gives a court general authority to fix interest and costs. On the face of § 284, a court’s authority to award interest is not restricted to exceptional circumstances, and there is no warrant for imposing such a limitation. When Congress wished to limit an element of recovery in a patent infringement action, it said so explicitly. With respect to attorney’s fees, Congress expressly provided that a court could award such fees to a prevailing party only “in exceptional cases.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The power to award interest was not similarly restricted. Devex, 461 U.S. at 653, 103 S.Ct. at 2061. The Court further recognized the need for consistency between the standard governing an award of prejudgment interest and Congress’ underlying purpose in enacting § 284 — to afford patent owners full compensation for the infringement of their p