Did you intend to use a technique? Did you intend to use it without permission. Note that the latter doesn't require knowledge that permission was required.

As to treble damages after being informed, that's an extra hammer, sort of like "you had a chance to clean up your act".

> Do you think you can have intent to infringe a particular patent without knowing that the particular patent exists?

Yes.

It's sort of like violating the law. You can be guilty of doing something with intent to do that thing even if you don't know which law is involved.

That isn't the question I'm considering, which is where the apparent disagreement comes from. Someone can intend to use a technique, while not intending to infringe a patent. It is infringing the patent which brings legal problems.

You can be guilty of doing something with intent to do that thing even if you don't know which law is involved.

In that case, yes, you'd have intent to do that thing, but no, you would not have intent to break the law.

The extra penalty is being applied to intent to break the law, to do that you need to know about the law. From the perspective of the person breaking the law, they think they are innocent. They don't intend to be guilty. (Even if they actually are guilty.)

I understand where you're trying to go, but, as with the criminal law situation, you're trying to reward ignorance.