Sentences with phrase «patent damages cases»

Mr. Duan explained that design patent litigation isn't nearly as widespread as software patent litigation, but depending on what happens in Apple v. Samsung and other design patent damages cases, design patents could give rise to many lawsuits by patent trolls in the not too distant future.

Not exact matches

Firms like Prager's sometimes take enforcement cases on a contingency basis, helping existing patent holders recover damages from infringers.

In February, Apotex paid US$ 444 million in damages to competitors Sanofi and Bristol - Myers Squibb after losing a decade - long patent infringement case involving Plavix, a blood thinner.

«After dropping their patent claims, this week Waymo lost one of the trade secrets they claimed was most important, had their damages expert excluded, and saw an entire defendant removed from the case — and all this before the trial has even started.»

One trial that did not go his way, however, was a case he initiated in 1994 against Spalding, in which he sought several million dollars in damages, claiming the company's Top - Flite and Tour Edition irons and later its Intimidator woods violated his patents.

I suspect that much of the increased patent litigation costs come from companies that are bringing questionable cases based upon inflated damages theories or refusing to settle infringement cases against them despite the fact that the facts do not support their case.

Want to see damages only in patent cases that have reached a claim construction hearing?

Lex Machina says that it has the only complete record of damages awards in patent, copyright, trademark, securities and antitrust cases since 2009.

The Court noted that although enhanced damage awards are discretionary, they must be consistent with a pattern laid out in over 180 years of case law under the Patent Act and earlier statutes.

It asked the court to tell the jury about that interpretation of the patent (which will now finally happen, tomorrow, as a result of the Federal Circuit decision), and it wanted to point to Apple's own 60 - cent - per - device damages claim over this patent in the Motorola case.

Now she has a problem, and the only reasonable solution I can see is that the» 647 patent be withdrawn from the current case because Apple's infringement argument and its damages claim, both erroneously supported by Judge Koh, were based on a wrong claim construction.

In this Western District of Washington patent case, the court ruled that Plaintiff's damages expert could not present a royalty rate calculated as 3x the rate found in a settlement, as an attempt to account for litigation uncertainty that could depress the royalty rate agreed upon in the settlement.

In patent infringement cases, the law requires that the patent owner receive from the infringer «damages adequate to compensate for the infringement,» but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.

The results of some of my cases (where a Markman hearing has occurred) are on the lists of top patent litigation damages awards of all time.

There is a majority opinion that says Judge Posner had erred to the extent that he applied a per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, yet affirms his decision to deny SEP - based injunctive relief in this case because, among other things, «Motorola's FRAND commitments, which have yielded many license agreements encompassing the» 898 patent, strongly suggest that money damages are adequate to fully compensate Motorola for any infringement».

Regarding apportionment, the Federal Circuit decided in the Mentor Graphics v. Eve - USA case, in March 2017, that when the lost profits damages Panduit factors are met, the factors incorporate into the analysis the value properly attributed to the patented features.

Meanwhile, Judge Koh has handed down an appealable final judgment in that first California Apple v. Samsung case, the parties appealed, and Samsung has already filed its opening brief with the Federal Circuit (the part concerning design patent damages — the bulk of the billion - dollar verdict, or «$ 929 million verdict» after a limited damages retrial, to be precise — has significant support in the U.S. legal community).

Magistrate Judge Grewal denied certain Samsung motions related to Apple expert reports on the alleged infringement of the» 381 patent, tbe alleged invalidity of the» 711 patent, the alleged non-infringement of the» 711 patent, an expert report on damages, an expert report on the importance of design to consumers (a cornerstone of Apple's argument in this case), and certain trade dress claims.

ION opposed the petition largely on the grounds that the case was a poor vehicle for the Court to consider extraterritorial damages under § 271 (f) because of other issues in the case, including that the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board subsequently found several claims in WesternGeco's patent to be unpatentable in an inter partes review procePatent Trial and Appeal Board subsequently found several claims in WesternGeco's patent to be unpatentable in an inter partes review procepatent to be unpatentable in an inter partes review proceeding.

«Reining in Remedies in Patent Litigation: Three (Increasingly Immodest) Proposals» proposes that injunctions be unavailable over FRAND - pledged SEPs, advocates apportionment of the disgorgement of an infringer's profits that a design patent holder can seek (this approach would have taken care of a substantial part of the damages issue in Apple v. Samsung, for example), and finally — which is the most ambitious part but makes a lot of sense to me — elaborates in the form of a «thought experiment» on an idea Judge Posner tossed out a few month ago: for a «wide swath of U.S. patent cases» it might be preferable to avoid jPatent Litigation: Three (Increasingly Immodest) Proposals» proposes that injunctions be unavailable over FRAND - pledged SEPs, advocates apportionment of the disgorgement of an infringer's profits that a design patent holder can seek (this approach would have taken care of a substantial part of the damages issue in Apple v. Samsung, for example), and finally — which is the most ambitious part but makes a lot of sense to me — elaborates in the form of a «thought experiment» on an idea Judge Posner tossed out a few month ago: for a «wide swath of U.S. patent cases» it might be preferable to avoid jpatent holder can seek (this approach would have taken care of a substantial part of the damages issue in Apple v. Samsung, for example), and finally — which is the most ambitious part but makes a lot of sense to me — elaborates in the form of a «thought experiment» on an idea Judge Posner tossed out a few month ago: for a «wide swath of U.S. patent cases» it might be preferable to avoid jpatent cases» it might be preferable to avoid juries.

The decision to hear a case that reviews whether a patent owner can recover profits lost outside of the U.S. due to infringement under 271 (f) could have significant consequences on damages awards.

The Court's decision is consistent with the broader trend of apportioning damages in utility patent cases to the particular patented technology found to infringe.

As a result, the Court vacated a $ 399 Million damage award against Samsung Electronics Co. in a lawsuit alleging infringement of design patents covering features of Apple, Inc.'s iPhone smartphones and sent the case back to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal for further analysis.

The case was successfully settled shortly after Mr. Randall obtained an expert report from the author of several key prior art references and damaging testimony from the inventors concerning the patentability of the asserted patent over that prior art.

While this decision does not affect design patent damages based on the patent owner's lost profits or a reasonable royalty, it is likely to limit the desirability of seeking the infringer's profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 in some cases, primarily those involving designs on portions of products.

The appeals court affirmed the district court, distinguishing prior cases awarding design patent damages for components by noting that the components in earlier cases were sold separately and considered separate products.

The decision is likely to provide a platform for the Federal Circuit to limit available damages in design patent cases involving complex products, such as where an infringed patent covers design elements present only in individual components of the product.

In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the prevailing Seagate test for finding willful infringement in patent cases — a finding for which a «court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed» pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

However, those who oppose software patents looked at the Bilski case as an opportunity for the SCOTUS to establish criteria for patentable subject matter («patent - eligibility») that, ideally, would have caused collateral damage (or collateral benefit from the anti-software-patent point of view) to the patentability of software.

Our win against LG included the first award of damages for willfulness in a standard - essential patent case, which also included a sua sponte enhancement by the Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit historically has afforded litigants substantial leeway in applying economic theory to establish damages in patent infringement cases, as long as the theories are based on reliable economic evidence and establish direct causation of loss.

The total damages amount in the first case ($ 929 million after two trials, but prior to the appeal, which Samsung filed last week) was $ 929 million, but the bulk of that was related to design patents and trade dress, i.e., intellectual property rights for which U.S. statutory law explicitly allows damages theories (disgorgement of infringer's profits) that are legally unavailable for utility (i.e., technical) patents.

These cases can include technical issues similar to patent cases, scientific elements similar to pharmaceutical cases, and damages issues similar to construction cases.

So we are not telling you, Mr. or Mrs. attorney, this is exactly how this case is going to turn out, and you certainly have the benefit of your experience, but no human can recall or read through the last thousand cases in the District of Delaware of this type and recall how many times the plaintiff was ruled for, how many times the defendant was ruled for, and then be able to mentally slice down and look at just end of cases, which is a subset of patent cases, or to look at a certain kind of damages or a certain timeframe.

We can report that the reasoning of those cases has been extended to 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows a court to increase damages up to three times of the amount found or assessed in an extraordinary patent case.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding, in a 6 - 5 decision, that laches could still apply in a patent case, and that Petrella did not apply, because the patent damages statute was different from the copyright statue.

Only a part of the CCIA's argument (the part that explains a disgorgement of total profits for one design patent can't be the answer since Apple holds multiple smartphone - related design patents, in which case a damages claim could theoretically amount to many billions of dollars) is duplicative of the professors» simultaneous filing.

Third, he distinguished the Petrella case on several grounds and noted that different policies are at play in a patent case because a plaintiff would have an incentive to delay in bringing an action, while a plaintiff in a copyright case would probably be impaired by waiting (due to loss of proof of infringement (evidence of copying) and evidence of damages).

The Supreme Court, in a 7 - 1 decision written by Justice Alito, has held that laches can not be invoked as a defense against any claim for damages in a patent case brought within the 6 - year limitation on damages prescribed by Section 286 of the patent statute.

To provide organizations the latest rulings and insight, the Sixth Edition IP Primer provides information and commentary about recent IP issues, including: the Supreme Court «s dramatic influence surrounding injunctions in patent cases; the Federal Circuit «s decisions on calculating damages in the modern era; Congress «introduction of the America Invents Act of 2011, considered the most dramatic overhaul of the patent system since the Patent Act of 1952; and proper compliance to open source software licensing terms, an issue rapidly gaining imporpatent cases; the Federal Circuit «s decisions on calculating damages in the modern era; Congress «introduction of the America Invents Act of 2011, considered the most dramatic overhaul of the patent system since the Patent Act of 1952; and proper compliance to open source software licensing terms, an issue rapidly gaining imporpatent system since the Patent Act of 1952; and proper compliance to open source software licensing terms, an issue rapidly gaining imporPatent Act of 1952; and proper compliance to open source software licensing terms, an issue rapidly gaining importance.

Oracle furthermore argues that no other court - appointed damages expert will be needed, given that the case no longer involves patents.

This report draws on Lex Machina's unique and rich Legal Analytics data on U.S. District Courts and judges, law firms, parties, patents, case merits decisions, damages awards, and International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).

From a damages point of view, the smartphone design patent part of the case is the real moneymaker for Apple here, but this is about stopping infringement more so than about money, and from an IP enforcement point of view, the D'889 patent is presumbly no less important to Apple than those iPhone design patents.

Askeladden forewarns that the elimination of laches in damages cases would encourage abusive, opportunistic and repetitive patent suits.

At issue is whether and to what extent a laches defense may bar a claim for damages in patent infringement brought within the Patent Act's six - year statutory limitations period, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in «Petrella v. Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer,» 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014)(the so - called «Raging Bull» case, so named because the lawsuit involved copyright issues surrounding the script for the 1980 Martin Scorsese patent infringement brought within the Patent Act's six - year statutory limitations period, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in «Petrella v. Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer,» 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014)(the so - called «Raging Bull» case, so named because the lawsuit involved copyright issues surrounding the script for the 1980 Martin Scorsese Patent Act's six - year statutory limitations period, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in «Petrella v. Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer,» 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014)(the so - called «Raging Bull» case, so named because the lawsuit involved copyright issues surrounding the script for the 1980 Martin Scorsese film).

Given the thousands of new cases filed, these numbers confirm the overwhelming importance of settlement negotiations in patent cases, and would even suggest that trial decisions might almost be an afterthought for those seeking infringement damages.

Based on data from Lex Machina's 2015 Patent Year in Review, the median damages award for patent cases is about $ 1.5 million, and approximately 90 % of awards are less than $ 50 miPatent Year in Review, the median damages award for patent cases is about $ 1.5 million, and approximately 90 % of awards are less than $ 50 mipatent cases is about $ 1.5 million, and approximately 90 % of awards are less than $ 50 million.

For parties like Apple and Samsung, locked in trials where damages could approach billions of dollars, the lack of actual rulings in patent cases must certainly add an additional level of uncertainty when assessing their chances of victory.

«However, this case is still important since an outsized damages award in Apple's favor could encourage other design patent holders to sue alleged infringers for huge amounts of money.»

The patent case load of the district courts has more than doubled since 2008, and verdicts like Apple - Samsung have captured headlines with eye - popping damages.