Injunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Injunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto"

Transcription

1 Injunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement From Innovation to Commercialisation 2007 February 2007

2 Feature Injunctions after ebay Injunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision By Brian V Slater, William E Solander and Dennis Gregory, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, New York In the United States, the two principal remedies for patent infringement are money damages for past infringement and an injunction to stop future infringement. While damages awards tend to grab the headlines, it is often an injunction that an accused infringer fears the most and that provides the patent owner with the greatest leverage in settlement negotiations. And, until recently, the grant of an injunction after a judicial ruling of patent infringement referred to as a permanent injunction was virtually automatic except in rare circumstances that nobody talked about outside academia. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in ebay v MercExchange has raised the bar for obtaining permanent injunctions by eliminating the general rule in favour of granting them. In addition, the ebay decision has cast doubt on the availability of permanent injunctions in particular situations, including where a patent owner does not practise its own invention. While the full effects of ebay are not yet known, there are already indications that permanent injunctions are becoming more difficult to obtain, with some courts denying injunctions in situations where they previously may have granted them. Ordinarily, a life sciences patent owner sues for infringement on a patent that covers its own commercial product, and ebay is likely to present little obstacle to a permanent injunction in that case. However, as discussed below, there may be situations where life sciences patent owners may no longer be able to count on an injunction. Injunctions before ebay Patents confer on their owners the right to exclude others from practising the claimed invention. While money damages help to compensate for past infringement, they do not stop the infringement going forward. That is where injunctions come in. They are court orders that give teeth to a patent owner s right to exclude by stopping the infringer from continuing to make and sell the infringing products. Injunctions come in two basic varieties: (1) permanent injunctions, which prevent future infringement after the patent owner has won an infringement suit, and (2) preliminary injunctions, which prevent infringement while the litigation is ongoing. In some other countries, an alternative to a permanent injunction is a compulsory licence, under which the infringer is allowed to pay to continue to infringe. However, compulsory licences are almost never granted to private parties in the US. Although the US patent statute states that courts may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity, the lower courts developed a general rule that a prevailing patent owner is entitled to a permanent injunction absent exceptional circumstances. Indeed, in the century before the ebay decision, the courts denied permanent injunctions in only a handful of cases, usually only where some important public interest was at stake. The ebay decision In ebay, the Supreme Court rejected the lower courts rule favouring permanent injunctions in patent cases. Instead, the general law of injunctions will apply to patent cases just as in any other type of case. From now on, the grant or denial of a permanent injunction will be decided on a case-by-case basis according to equitable principles, and a prevailing patentee will have to satisfy the following four factors: It has suffered an irreparable injury. Monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for that injury. From Innovation to Commercialisation 23

3 Injunctions after ebay Considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, an injunction is warranted. The public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. While these factors are simple enough to state, applying them to any particular situation will inevitably prove more difficult. Indeed, although all of the members of the Supreme Court in ebay agreed that this fourfactor test is the appropriate standard, they diverged on how to apply the test in specific circumstances. In one concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts and two other members of the Court agreed that courts should apply the fourfactor test, but believed that its proper application should result in the continued easy availability of permanent injunctions in patent cases. They reasoned that the patent right to exclude is difficult to protect through money damages alone. And while they agreed there should be no general rule in favour of permanent injunctions, they appealed to the long American judicial tradition favouring their grant. In a separate opinion, four Justices, led by Justice Kennedy, argued for limiting the availability of patent injunctions more than in the past. They argued that new factual situations have emerged where the availability of a permanent injunction should not be assured. In particular, the justices pinpointed three categories of case where the threat of such an injunction may provide undue leverage to the patent owner: Where the patent owner does not practise its own invention. Where the invention is a small component of a larger product. Business method patents. Unfortunately, the remaining two Justices of the Supreme Court did not join either concurring opinion or write a separate opinion of their own, leaving the lower courts with no clear guidance on which approach to take. What does ebay change? The most obvious immediate change ebay will bring about is in the nature of the proofs a patent owner will have to present to a court. Patent owners will now have to present evidence in support of each of the four injunction factors, rather than relying on the mere fact of infringement. Factual evidence will have to be developed and submitted, for example, on the effects of the infringement on the patent owner s business and the likely impact of an injunction on the infringer and the public. In some cases, expert testimony to interpret that evidence may also be necessary. Of the four factors cited in ebay, the most important will likely be proof of irreparable injury to the patent owner. Types of harm that courts generally consider irreparable include loss of market share, injury to good will, injury to reputation and irreversible price erosion. As to the second ebay factor, the patent owner will have to justify why money alone will not fully make up for the injury suffered. The last two factors harm to the infringer and the public interest will also have to be addressed, but are likely to be less important except, for example, in the rare case where an important public interest is jeopardised by an injunction. Predictably, two lines of cases have emerged in the lower courts since ebay, one following each of the concurring opinions of the Supreme Court. While the majority of courts have followed the traditional approach and continue to grant permanent injunctions, several courts to date have denied permanent injunctions and instead have awarded some form of monetary relief, including compulsory licences. The unpredictability caused by this split is likely to continue at least until several appeals from post-ebay injunction denials have been decided. Going forward, it is likely that the most controversial areas will be the three categories that Justice Kennedy argued in ebay may not warrant permanent injunctions. We discuss below the two of these categories that have particular relevance to inventions in the life sciences. Non-practising entities Some critics have derided patent owners that do not practise their own inventions by referring to them as trolls. This term is usually reserved for entities whose sole purpose is to acquire patent rights and seek royalties often under threat of injunctive relief from producers of an already marketed infringing product. The critics argue that it is inequitable to grant trolls a permanent injunction because it may destroy the business of the infringer, while providing none of the traditional benefits of an injunction in the form of reduced competition for the patent owner s own product. Moreover, an injunction is not what the troll is really after. Rather, it is the mere threat of the injunction, a virtual certainty up until ebay, that provides the 24 From Innovation to Commercialisation

4 Injunctions after ebay leverage to extract a high royalty from the infringer, which may be too afraid to test its defences in court and risk having its product removed from the market. The counterargument relies on the historical purpose of the patent system itself, namely the reward of a time-limited right to exclude others from practising in exchange for public disclosure of a useful invention. In other words, even in the case of a troll, someone, somewhere, made a useful invention and received a patent. Often, that inventor cannot exploit the invention or seeks to sell the patent right for immediate economic gain. The acquirer of the right the alleged troll is simply attempting to realise value from its investment. Incentives to such inventors will be reduced, the argument goes, if the incentives to the acquirer of the patent are reduced. The check on the monopoly rights of the patent acquirer is simple: if the patent is weak (either of questionable validity or easy to design around), then the patent will not withstand scrutiny and the accused infringer will either settle for a nominal sum or prevail at trial. In the life sciences, the type of entity fitting the above definition of a troll has been relatively rare. Instead, the typical nonpractising entity is a university or non-profit research organisation. The question for courts, then, is whether those entities should be considered trolls for which a permanent injunction should be more difficult to get, or whether they should be treated the same as patent owners that practise their invention. A university or non-profit research organisation is in the business of doing research, the fruits of which may be inventions worthy of patents. It is the revenue from those patents that in turn contributes to further research and further innovation. Typically, those patents are licensed prior to the development and marketing of an infringing product, but suits between such entities and marketers of developed products are not unheard of. In those situations, some will argue that the policy argument for denying trolls a permanent injunction should also apply: namely, that the university or research organisation receives no benefit that equitably justifies the imposition of a permanent injunction. However, the policy argument for permitting permanent injunctions is also the same: namely, the threat of an injunction maximises the potential revenue by increasing royalties, which in turn promotes the useful research that such entities carry out. It remains to be seen how the courts will balance these competing views in light of ebay. Invention is a small component of a larger product In ebay, Justice Kennedy raised the concern that where the invention is a small component of a larger product, the patent owner has undue leverage if it can use that patent to obtain a permanent injunction that forces the larger product from the market. In that case, the bargaining power of the patent owner is increased some would say disproportionately compared to the contribution of the invention to the value of the overall product. Implicit in this concern is the assumption that the invention s contribution of value to the product is small. It is this assumption that critics of this theory say is unwarranted. They argue that a critical component could be the very thing that makes the larger product valuable, because if it did not, the accused infringer could simply avoid infringement by substituting a non-infringing component without sacrificing much of the product s overall value. Take the example of an inhaler containing an expensive drug substance and an excipient. A patent holder on the excipient could assert patent infringement and demand a large royalty based on the total value of the inhaler (including the value of the drug), by threatening a permanent injunction that would cause the inhaler s removal from the market. Some may argue that a permanent injunction should not be awarded in this situation because it inequitably favours the patentee, which, by virtue of inventing an excipient, can force an inhaler and expensive medication off the market. Those on the other side of this hypothetical would undoubtedly argue that if the excipient were that unimportant, it could be left out or easily substituted in the inhaler. If it cannot be, then it must be contributing significant value to the overall product and thus a higher royalty should be paid. Complicating this analysis are public interest arguments favouring access to lifesaving drugs and the inherent difficulty of changing a highly regulated product, even where the change is for something as seemingly minor as the change of an excipient. We can expect that the lower courts will wrestle with these competing considerations for some time to come. Preliminary injunctions Preliminary injunctions, ie, injunctions during From Innovation to Commercialisation 25

5 Injunctions after ebay suit, are far more difficult to obtain than permanent injunctions because they result in an accused infringer being taken off the market before a final court decision. The impact of ebay on preliminary injunctions is even less clear than its impact on permanent injunctions. Some courts have held that ebay has no impact at all on preliminary injunctions after all, ebay dealt only with permanent injunctions. However, until an appellate court says otherwise, accused infringers will likely continue to argue that ebay applies to preliminary injunctions. The four factors that are considered when a party seeks a preliminary injunction are: The likelihood of the patentee s success on the merits. Irreparable harm to the patentee if the injunction is not granted. The balance of the hardships between the parties. The public interest. The first factor the likelihood of success on the merits is by far the most important issue in preliminary injunctions and often effectively dictates the result. Likelihood of success is, of course, irrelevant to the situation dealt with in ebay injunctions after a trial court decision. Therefore, this factor s importance to a preliminary injunction decision is unlikely to be affected by ebay. The remaining three preliminary injunction factors, however, overlap with ebay s four-factor test for permanent injunctions, so ebay may still affect preliminary injunction practice. In one post-ebay case, for example, the court denied a preliminary injunction in the case of a patent on an insulin inhaler in part because the patent owner s product was at least four years away from marketing whereas the infringer was ready to market. Conclusion Patent owners in the life sciences can no longer assume that they will automatically obtain an injunction if they prevail in an infringement suit. Rather, they will have to prove that they deserve one by presenting evidence that supports each of the four ebay factors. In some circumstances, an injunction may be harder to obtain, which will affect the dynamics of settlement by shifting more power to the accused infringer. Patent owners would be well advised to follow the emerging law interpreting ebay to determine how it affects the value of their patents. 26 From Innovation to Commercialisation

6 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY , USA Tel: Fax: Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto continued Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto continued Brian V Slater Partner bslater@fchs.com Brian V Slater is a partner with Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto in New York, where he has practised since graduating from the University of Pennsylvania with a master s in law in Prior to that he obtained his LLB (with first-class honours) from the University of Strathclyde in Scotland. He specialises in patent litigation, especially in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields, and has extensive experience litigating disputes under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Mr Slater has argued before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and is a frequent author and speaker on intellectual property-related issues. William E Solander Partner wsolander@fchs.com William E Solander is active in all areas of the firm s litigation practice and has participated in the litigation of numerous patent disputes, including the coordination of litigation occurring on a worldwide basis. Mr Solander s practice has embraced a wide range of technologies including, most recently, anti-cancer drugs, polymorphs, antiulcer drugs, structural composites and new battery technologies. Mr Solander also counsels clients concerning noninfringement, invalidity and freedom to practise in these and other fields. He is an author and frequent lecturer on the topics of litigation strategy, polymorph patents and Hatch-Waxman litigation. Dennis Gregory Associate dgregory@fchs.com Dennis Gregory s practice focuses on pharmaceutical patent litigation. Mr Gregory has handled matters relating to thrombin inhibitors, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers and formulation technologies, as well as freedom to operate issues related to importation of pharmaceuticals into the United States. From Innovation to Commercialisation 27

7 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY , USA Tel: Fax:

The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation

The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation Presented by the IP Litigation Group of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP October 2007 Background on Simpson Thacher Founded 1884 in New York City Now, over 750

More information

Reasonable Royalties After EBay

Reasonable Royalties After EBay Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Reasonable Royalties After EBay Monday, Sep

More information

Nine years after Ebay Should German courts have discretion when deciding on injunctions in patent infringement litigations?

Nine years after Ebay Should German courts have discretion when deciding on injunctions in patent infringement litigations? Nine years after Ebay Should German courts have discretion when deciding on injunctions in patent infringement litigations? 21 th Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law & Policy at Fordham IP Law

More information

EBAY INC. v. MERC EXCHANGE, L.L.C. 126 S.Ct (2006)

EBAY INC. v. MERC EXCHANGE, L.L.C. 126 S.Ct (2006) EBAY INC. v. MERC EXCHANGE, L.L.C. 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006) Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing

More information

Norway. Norway. By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS

Norway. Norway. By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS Norway By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights in your jurisdiction? Cases

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

The Truth About Injunctions In Patent Disputes OCTOBER 2017

The Truth About Injunctions In Patent Disputes OCTOBER 2017 The Truth About Injunctions In Patent Disputes OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com Injunction Statistics Percent of Injunctions Granted 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Injunction Grant Rate by PAE Status

More information

Case 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5 Case :04-cv-000-TJW Document 44 Filed 0/1/007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O MICRO INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff, v. BEYOND INNOVATION

More information

SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S.

SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S. SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S. The 10 th Annual Generics, Supergenerics, and Patent Strategies Conference London, England May 16, 2007 Provided by: Charles R. Wolfe, Jr. H. Keeto

More information

Remedies for patent infringement: Damages or injunctions?

Remedies for patent infringement: Damages or injunctions? Remedies for patent infringement: Damages or injunctions? Vincenzo Denicolò Università di Bologna & University of Leicester I starts infringing Court finds patent valid and infringed 1. Prospectve remedies:

More information

Patents in Europe 2016/2017. Helping business compete in the global economy

Patents in Europe 2016/2017. Helping business compete in the global economy In association with Greece Maria Athanassiadou and Henning Voelkel Dr Helen G Papaconstantinou and Partners Patents in Europe 2016/2017 Helping business compete in the global economy Dr Helen G Papaconstantinou

More information

Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages

Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages

More information

Patent Enforcement in the US

Patent Enforcement in the US . Patent Enforcement in the US Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm IP Enforcement around the World in the Chemical Arts Royal Society of Chemistry, Law Group London 28 October

More information

Fed. Circ. Should Clarify Irreparable Harm In Patent Cases

Fed. Circ. Should Clarify Irreparable Harm In Patent Cases Fed Circ Should Clarify Irreparable Harm In Patent Cases Law360, New York (December 02, 2013, 1:23 PM ET) -- As in other cases, to obtain an injunction in a patent case, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate,

More information

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT S DECISION IN EBAY V. MERCEXCHANGE: HOW IRREPARABLE THE INJURY TO PATENT INJUNCTIONS? RICHARD B. KLAR I.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT S DECISION IN EBAY V. MERCEXCHANGE: HOW IRREPARABLE THE INJURY TO PATENT INJUNCTIONS? RICHARD B. KLAR I. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT S DECISION IN EBAY V. MERCEXCHANGE: HOW IRREPARABLE THE INJURY TO PATENT INJUNCTIONS? RICHARD B. KLAR I. INTRODUCTION The United States Supreme Court s decision in ebay,

More information

Case: 3:11-cv bbc Document #: 487 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 7

Case: 3:11-cv bbc Document #: 487 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 7 Case: 3:11-cv-00178-bbc Document #: 487 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information

Remedies for Patent Infringement in the Medical Sector

Remedies for Patent Infringement in the Medical Sector Remedies for Patent Infringement in the Medical Sector September 2018 Patent monopolies in the medical sector have always been controversial, with the need to promote and fairly compensate innovation on

More information

4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA

4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA 4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA Provisions of the Indian patent law were compared with the relevant provisions of the patent laws in U.S., Europe and

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING UNDER 5 U.S.C. 553(e) AND 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) TO CORRECT THE TEXT PLACED ON ISSUED PATENT COVER BINDERS TO REMOVE WRONG INFORMATION

More information

Injunctive Relief in U.S. Courts

Injunctive Relief in U.S. Courts Injunctive Relief in U.S. Courts Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser Patent Litigation Remedies Session/Injunctions April 13, 2012 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Fordham IP Conference April 13, 2012 Footer / document

More information

Patent Reform Through the Courts

Patent Reform Through the Courts Berkeley Law Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2-1-2007 Patent Reform Through the Courts Pamela Samuelson Berkeley Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs

More information

China Intellectual Properly News

China Intellectual Properly News LEGAL LANGUAGE SERVICES A n affiliateofalsinternationalt e l e p h o n e (212)766-4111 18 John Street T o l l Free (800) 788-0450 Suite 300 T e l e f a x (212) 349-0964 New York, NY 10038 w v, r w l e

More information

Injunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants

Injunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants Injunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants AIPLA 2014 Spring Meeting Colin G. Sandercock* * These slides have been prepared for the AIPLA 2014 Spring

More information

the Patent Battleground:

the Patent Battleground: The Antitrust Enforcers Charge Onto the Patent Battleground: What Technology Companies Need to Know About Standard-Related Patents, RAND Commitments, and Competition Law Presenters: Willard K. Tom John

More information

Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web

Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code IB10105 Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Hatch-Waxman Act: Proposed Legislative Changes Affecting Pharmaceutical Patents Updated November 25, 2002 Wendy H. Schacht and

More information

NTT DOCOMO Technical Journal. Akimichi Tanabe Takuya Asaoka Katsunori Tsunoda Makoto Kijima. 1. Introduction

NTT DOCOMO Technical Journal. Akimichi Tanabe Takuya Asaoka Katsunori Tsunoda Makoto Kijima. 1. Introduction Essential Patent Rights Exercise Restriction NPE 1. Introduction Recent growth in patent transactions has been accompanied by increasing numbers of patent disputes, especially in the field of information

More information

United States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello

United States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello United States Author Daniel Fiorello Legal framework The United States offers protection for designs in a formal application procedure resulting in a design patent. Design patents protect the non-functional

More information

How patents work An introduction for law students

How patents work An introduction for law students How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent

More information

Enjoining Life Sciences Competition: A Review and Discussion

Enjoining Life Sciences Competition: A Review and Discussion Litigation Webinar Series Enjoining Life Sciences Competition: A Review and Discussion Betsy Flanagan Principal, Minneapolis, MN Greg Booker Principal, Wilmington, DE 1 Welcome Litigation Series Key Developments

More information

Case 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18

Case 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18 --------------------- ----- Case 1:13-cv-02027-JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------- x COGNEX CORPORATION;

More information

Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents

Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents Walter Holzer 1 S.G.D.G. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity. 2 A patent examiner simply cannot be aware of all facts and circumstances

More information

Detailed Table of Contents

Detailed Table of Contents Detailed Table of Contents Main Volume Supplement Preface... vii vii Acknowledgments... ix xi Summary Table of Contents... xiii xiii I. Patent Infringement Liability 1. Direct and Indirect Infringement

More information

France Baker & McKenzie SCP

France Baker & McKenzie SCP Baker & McKenzie SCP This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Patents in Europe 2008 April 2008 France By Jean-François Bretonnière and Tania Kern, Baker & McKenzie SCP, Paris 1. What options

More information

Canada Intellectual property enforcement

Canada Intellectual property enforcement Sponsored by Statistical data supplied by Canada Intellectual property enforcement This article first appeared in IP Value 2004, Building and enforcing intellectual property value, An international guide

More information

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP 2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &

More information

Patents in Europe 2011/2012. Greece Lappa

Patents in Europe 2011/2012. Greece Lappa Patents in Europe 2011/2012 Lappa By Eleni Lappa, Drakopoulos Law Firm, Athens 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights

More information

Early Resolution Mechanism for Patent Disputes Regarding Approved Drug Products - Canada

Early Resolution Mechanism for Patent Disputes Regarding Approved Drug Products - Canada Early Resolution Mechanism for Patent Disputes Regarding Approved Drug Products - Canada Pharma Workshop 4 AIPPI Toronto September 16, 2014 Warren Sprigings Direct Dial: +1-416-777-2273 warren@sprigings.com

More information

Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Abstract Not only is it important for startups to obtain intellectual property rights, but they must also actively monitor for infringement

More information

Patent Trolls in Europe Does Patent Law Require New Barriers? For the May 2008 GRUR Meeting, Stuttgart By the Rt. Hon Sir Robin Jacob 1

Patent Trolls in Europe Does Patent Law Require New Barriers? For the May 2008 GRUR Meeting, Stuttgart By the Rt. Hon Sir Robin Jacob 1 Patent Trolls in Europe Does Patent Law Require New Barriers? For the May 2008 GRUR Meeting, Stuttgart By the Rt. Hon Sir Robin Jacob 1 1. Definition and language. What is a patent troll? The phrase patent

More information

The Myriad patent litigation Patentability of DNA molecules

The Myriad patent litigation Patentability of DNA molecules The Myriad patent litigation Patentability of DNA molecules Presentation to the SIPO Delegation SIPO/US Bar Liaison Council with ACPAA Joint Symposium at Cardozo Law School New York City, June 3, 2013

More information

United Kingdom. By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP

United Kingdom. By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP Powell Gilbert LLP United Kingdom United Kingdom By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP Q: What options are open to a patent owner seeking to enforce its rights in your jurisdiction?

More information

The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: What patents are eligible to be listed on the register?

The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: What patents are eligible to be listed on the register? The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: What patents are eligible to be listed on the register? Edward Hore Hazzard & Hore 141 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1002 Toronto, ON M5H 3L5 (416)

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 11-6936 (SRC) v. OPINION & ORDER TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant. CHESLER,

More information

Lessons From Inter Partes Review Denials

Lessons From Inter Partes Review Denials Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lessons From Inter Partes Review Denials Law360, New

More information

Oklahoma Law Review. Jean Carlos Lopez. Volume 60 Number 3

Oklahoma Law Review. Jean Carlos Lopez. Volume 60 Number 3 Oklahoma Law Review Volume 60 Number 3 2007 Weapon of Mass Coercion: How ebay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. Eliminated the Threat of Coercive Automatic Permanent Injunctive Relief and Restored Balance to

More information

Infringement Assertions In The New World Order

Infringement Assertions In The New World Order Infringement Assertions In The New World Order IP Law360, October 17, 2007, Guest Column Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Michael J. Kasdan Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 The recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit

More information

Act No. 2 of the Year A.D relating to Patents, Utility Models, Integrated Circuit Layouts and Undisclosed Information

Act No. 2 of the Year A.D relating to Patents, Utility Models, Integrated Circuit Layouts and Undisclosed Information The Republic of Yemen Ministry of Legal Affairs In the Name of God, the Compassionate the Merciful Act No. 2 of the Year A.D. 2011 relating to Patents, Utility Models, Integrated Circuit Layouts and Undisclosed

More information

GEORGETOWN LAW. Georgetown University Law Center. CIS-No.: 2005-H521-64

GEORGETOWN LAW. Georgetown University Law Center. CIS-No.: 2005-H521-64 Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2005 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2795, the "Patent Act of 2005": Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and

More information

LexisNexis Expert Commentaries David Heckadon on the Differences Between US and Canadian Patent Prosecution

LexisNexis Expert Commentaries David Heckadon on the Differences Between US and Canadian Patent Prosecution David Heckadon on the Differences Between US and Canadian Patent Prosecution Research Solutions December 2007 The following article summarizes some of the important differences between US and Canadian

More information

Case 3:15-cv MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 38 PageID: 1

Case 3:15-cv MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 38 PageID: 1 Case 3:15-cv-02520-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 38 PageID: 1 Liza M. Walsh, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY LLP 85 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1765 (973) 535-0500 Of Counsel: William

More information

Respecting Patent Rights: Model Behavior for Patent Owners

Respecting Patent Rights: Model Behavior for Patent Owners IPO LITIGATION PRINCIPLES TASK FORCE: WHITE PAPER Revised: 03/06/2007 Part I. Introduction 2007 Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Disclaimer: This paper is presented for discussion purposes

More information

COMMENT ON: PATENT TRESPASS AND THE ROYALTY GAP: EXPLORING THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF PATENT HOLDOUT BY BOWMAN HEIDEN & NICOLAS PETIT

COMMENT ON: PATENT TRESPASS AND THE ROYALTY GAP: EXPLORING THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF PATENT HOLDOUT BY BOWMAN HEIDEN & NICOLAS PETIT COMMENT ON: PATENT TRESPASS AND THE ROYALTY GAP: EXPLORING THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF PATENT HOLDOUT BY BOWMAN HEIDEN & NICOLAS PETIT Innovation and Patent Systems: Assessing Theory and Evidence IP 2 Conference

More information

Belgium. Belgium. By Annick Mottet Haugaard and Christian Dekoninck, Lydian, Brussels

Belgium. Belgium. By Annick Mottet Haugaard and Christian Dekoninck, Lydian, Brussels Lydian By Annick Mottet Haugaard and Christian Dekoninck, Lydian, Brussels 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights in

More information

US-China Business Council Comments on the Draft Measures for the Compulsory Licensing of Patents

US-China Business Council Comments on the Draft Measures for the Compulsory Licensing of Patents US-China Business Council Comments on the Draft Measures for the Compulsory Licensing of Patents The US-China Business Council (USCBC) and its member companies appreciate the opportunity to submit comments

More information

Published by. Yearbook. Building IP value in the 21st century. Standard-essential patent monetisation and enforcement. Vringo, Inc David L Cohen

Published by. Yearbook. Building IP value in the 21st century. Standard-essential patent monetisation and enforcement. Vringo, Inc David L Cohen Published by Yearbook 2016 Building IP value in the 21st century Standard-essential patent monetisation and enforcement Vringo, Inc David L Cohen Vringo, Inc Monetisation and strategy X X Standard-essential

More information

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) An unofficial consolidation produced by Patents Legal Section 17 December 2007 UK Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 1 Note to users

More information

Case 2:02-cv AC Document 176 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:02-cv AC Document 176 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:02-cv-73543-AC Document 176 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SUNDANCE, INC. and MERLOT TARPAULIN AND SIDEKIT MANUFACTURING

More information

Patents Ownership. Inventor default owner of patent right

Patents Ownership. Inventor default owner of patent right Patents Ownership Inventor default owner of patent right Assignment of patent right must be in writing. 35 U.S.C. 261 However, [a] person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file

More information

The Third Amendment to the Patent Law of China. On December 27, 2008, the Standing Committee of the National People's

The Third Amendment to the Patent Law of China. On December 27, 2008, the Standing Committee of the National People's The Third Amendment to the Patent Law of China On December 27, 2008, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted the third amendment to the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China,

More information

Business Method Patents: Past, Present and Future

Business Method Patents: Past, Present and Future January 11, 2007 Business Method Patents: Past, Present and Future The United States Patent and Trademark Office ( Patent Office ) continues to grant business method patents covering a broad range of subject

More information

Israel Israël Israel. Report Q192. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND

Israel Israël Israel. Report Q192. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND Israel Israël Israel Report Q192 in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Questions 1) The Groups are invited to indicate if

More information

Pharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?

Pharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting? Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Pharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No.06-937 In the Supreme Court of the United States QUANTA COMPUTER, INC., ET AL., v. Petitioners, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Response to the Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe Introduction: Who IPLA Are The Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (previously known as the

More information

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012 Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association May 23, 2012 Overview A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in over 60 years; signed into law Sept. 16,

More information

The ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman Litigation

The ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman Litigation Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman

More information

Patent Enforcement in India

Patent Enforcement in India Patent Enforcement in India Intellectual property assets are touted as the cornerstone of competitiveness in international trade and are the driving factors behind socio-economic development in India.

More information

WIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM FOR HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES

WIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM FOR HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES ORIGINAL: English DATE: July 2002 E MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (SIPO) WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION JAPAN PATENT OFFICE WIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM

More information

AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017

AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introductory 1 Short title 2 Commencement

More information

Case 3:16-cv MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:16-cv MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:16-cv-05678-MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 Liza M. Walsh Tricia B. O Reilly Katelyn O Reilly WALSH PIZZI O REILLY FALANGA LLP 1037 Raymond Boulevard, Suite 600 Newark,

More information

The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys

The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys James Morando, Jeff Fisher and Alex Reese Farella Braun + Martel LLP After many years of debate,

More information

PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT!

PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT! A BNA s PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT! JOURNAL Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 81 PTCJ 36, 11/05/2010. Copyright 2010 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

More information

Trademark Litigation A Global Guide. Poland. Kulikowska & Kulikowski Beata Wojtkowska and Monika Chimiak

Trademark Litigation A Global Guide. Poland. Kulikowska & Kulikowski Beata Wojtkowska and Monika Chimiak Trademark Litigation 2017 A Global Guide Poland Kulikowska & Kulikowski Beata Wojtkowska and Monika Chimiak Poland Kulikowska & Kulikowski Authors Beata Wojtkowska and Monika Chimiak Legislative framework

More information

Case 1:09-md SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592

Case 1:09-md SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592 Case 1:09-md-02118-SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: CYCLOBENZAPRINE ) HYDROCHLORIDE EXTENDED ) Civ. No.

More information

Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions

Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions TOPIC Innovation Act H.R. 9 PATENT Act S. 1137 Post Grant Review ( PGR ) Proceedings Claim Construction: Each patent claim

More information

TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017

TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017 TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES LTC Harms Japan 2017 SOURCES INTERNATIONAL: TRIPS NATIONAL Statute law: Copyright Act Trade Marks Act Patents Act Procedural law CIVIL REMEDIES Injunctions Interim injunctions Anton

More information

Patent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations

Patent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations Patent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations The Intellectual Property Society April 10, 2005 Patrick Reilly 1 I. Pre-Litigation Check-List 2 Purposes of a Pre-Litigation Check-List Validity Can the

More information

Chapter Patent Infringement --

Chapter Patent Infringement -- Chapter 5 -- Patent Infringement -- In this chapter, we will explore the scope of a patent and how it is determine whether a patent has been infringed. The scope of a patent, i.e., what the patent covers,

More information

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM

More information

European Patent Litigation: An overview

European Patent Litigation: An overview European Patent Litigation: An overview Tuesday 28 September 2010 Hogan Lovells in partnership with the Association of Corporate Counsel Europe Your speaker panel Co-Chairs: Marten Bezemer Associate General

More information

Competition law as a defence in patent infringement cases the universal tool for getting off the hook or a paper tiger?

Competition law as a defence in patent infringement cases the universal tool for getting off the hook or a paper tiger? Newsletter IP & Technology Competition law as a defence in patent infringement cases the universal tool for getting off the hook or a paper tiger? For decades any cry of patent infringement from a patentee

More information

Damages and Remedies in Civil IP Cases An U.S. Perspective

Damages and Remedies in Civil IP Cases An U.S. Perspective Damages and Remedies in Civil IP Cases An U.S. Perspective Elaine B. Gin Attorney - Advisor Office of Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement US Patent & Trademark Office Every right has a remedy

More information

Patent Litigation in Taiwan: overview

Patent Litigation in Taiwan: overview Patent Litigation in Taiwan: overview Resource type: Country Q&A Status: Law stated as at 01-Jan-2016 Jurisdiction: Taiwan A Q&A guide to patent litigation in Taiwan. The Q&A gives a high level overview

More information

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative 2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,

More information

August 6, AIPLA Comments on Partial Amendment of Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act (Draft)

August 6, AIPLA Comments on Partial Amendment of Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act (Draft) Person in Charge of the Partial Amendment of the IP Guidelines (Draft) Consultation and Guidance Office, Trade Practices Division Economic Affairs Bureau, Secretariat, Japan Fair Trade Commission Section

More information

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine AMERICA INVENTS ACT Changes to Patent Law Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine American Invents Act of 2011 Enacted on September 16, 2011 Effective date for most provisions was September

More information

Venable's IP News & Comment

Venable's IP News & Comment Venable's IP News & Comment AUGUST 2006 Members of Venable's 80-plus Technology Division are pleased to present this edition of Venable's IP News & Comment, covering topics generating the greatest interest

More information

Act No. 435/2001 Coll. on Patents, Supplementary Protection Certificates and on Amendment of Some Acts as Amended (The Patent Act)

Act No. 435/2001 Coll. on Patents, Supplementary Protection Certificates and on Amendment of Some Acts as Amended (The Patent Act) Act No. 435/2001 Coll. on Patents, Supplementary Protection Certificates and on Amendment of Some Acts as Amended (The Patent Act) Amended by : Act No. 402/2002 Coll. Act No. 84/2007 Coll. Act No. 517/2007

More information

Caraco V. Novo Nordisk: Antitrust Implications

Caraco V. Novo Nordisk: Antitrust Implications Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Caraco V. Novo Nordisk: Antitrust Implications Law360,

More information

No IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division,

No IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division, No. 10-1070 ~[~ 2 7 7.i~[ IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., Petitioners, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT

More information

Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal

Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal Engey Elrefaie: Injunctive Relief Post Ebay and the Various Applications of the Four-factor Test in Differing Technological Industries Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal INJUNCTIVE RELIEF POST EBAY

More information

Second medical use or indication claims. Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong

Second medical use or indication claims. Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: AIPPI SINGAPORE Second medical use or indication claims Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong THAM, Winnie Date: 17

More information

Delaware Chancery Clarifies Duty Of Disclosure

Delaware Chancery Clarifies Duty Of Disclosure Page 1 of 12 Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Delaware Chancery Clarifies Duty

More information

Italy Orsingher-Avvocati Associati

Italy Orsingher-Avvocati Associati Orsingher-Avvocati Associati This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Patents in Europe 2008 April 2008 Italy By Matteo Orsingher and Fabrizio Sanna, Orsingher-Avvocati Associati, Milan

More information

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect June 15, 2016 Litigation Webinar Series Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect Adam J. Kessel Principal, Boston Lawrence K. Kolodney Principal, Boston Jolynn M. Lussier

More information

Examining Patent Enforcement and Litigation in India from A Development Perspective A study

Examining Patent Enforcement and Litigation in India from A Development Perspective A study Examining Patent Enforcement and Litigation in India from A Development Perspective A study Ayyappan Palanissamy + School of Business and Design, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak, Kuching, Malaysia

More information

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect June 15, 2016 Litigation Webinar Series Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect Adam J. Kessel Principal, Boston Lawrence K. Kolodney Principal, Boston Jolynn M. Lussier

More information

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778 Case 3:13-cv-04987-M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ILIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. NINTENDO

More information

An Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation

An Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com An Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation

More information