How to avoid patent infringement in the design process

Therefore, there is no need for patent infringement defense for independent development or even for applying for one's own patent on products suspected of infringement. Is it possible to avoid patent infringement when designing complex and highly integrated circuits or embedded systems with various features and functions? What does inverse logic mean to designers or manufacturers? At least when adding new functions or changing the design, look for relevant patents. If problems are found, designers or manufacturers need to design around them. However, this is not what typical patent lawyers need to do, and certainly not because they want their clients to be sued. Patent search may not be a good idea for two reasons. First of all, find out the practical problems of time and money in patent. It is quite unrealistic to find and study every patent related to all the characteristics and functions of integrated circuits, and the cost is too high, not to mention the patent search related to other circuit combination functions. Moreover, the search may not be successful in finding the required patent features. In addition, there is no guarantee that every relevant patent has been found. Patent inquiry with only one function can be very expensive. In addition, the patent search you need may have a lot of legal fees. Secondly, finding that annoying patent may mean two choices: either you have to change the design or you stop selling this product. On the other hand, manufacturers are also in danger of being labeled as patent infringement and may be prohibited from producing other products. No one likes to face such a situation. Third, there is another problem that needs to be seriously considered-the responsibility of "increased damage". In order to prevent intentional patent infringement, according to the authorization of the patent law, the court has the right to order the intentional infringer to pay compensation up to three times the actual loss. In other words, the infringer needs to pay up to three times the amount owed. Moreover, in order to punish the infringer, the court can also order the intentional infringer to pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fee to the patentee. Knowing only one patent will greatly increase the risk of patent infringement. Because of the potential danger of compulsory compensation for triple losses and the burden of plaintiff's litigation costs, it leads to the situation of resolutely refusing to refer to other people's patents-unswervingly adopting the strategy of avoiding reality, but this situation is not as serious as the irrational reaction of fear, but only as a way to ensure ignorance of patents.