Economic Model #1. The first model calculated damages by applying a 2 to 5 percent royalty rate to the entire cost of

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Economic Model #1. The first model calculated damages by applying a 2 to 5 percent royalty rate to the entire cost of"

Transcription

1 June 24, 2004 Federal Circuit Damages Decision Emphasizes the Importance of Sound Economic Models IP Review, McDermott Will & Emery By Michael K. Milani, Robert M. Hess and James E. Malackowski Introduction On July 31, 2002 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court issued its opinion in the case of William G. Riles v. Shell Exploration and Production Company. In making its ruling, the CAFC described the damage award as being "excessive and unsupported by evidence" and therefore vacated the district court's award and remanded the case for a re-determination of damages. While such a situation obviously creates consternation for the client, it also may cause severe hardship for outside counsel and damages experts alike in the form of strained relationships and tarnished reputations. Through a review and analysis of the initial damages award and its subsequent reversal, this article provides additional insight into the determination and calculation of sound damages awards, and highlights the importance of thoroughly supported opinions. Background Riles filed suit against Shell for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,669,918 (the '918 patent). With respect to the construction of Shell's "Spirit" oil drilling platform, the '918 patent relates to a method of construction and installation of fixed offshore drilling platforms. A fixed offshore drilling platform is essentially comprised of foundational pilings imbedded into the sea floor, a tower or "jacket" going to the surface, and an above water "deck". Prior to the '918 patent, "mud mats" were typically used to temporarily level and support the jacket while it was anchored to the sea floor with foundation pilings. According to the invention in the '918 patent, pilings were imbedded first and then the jacket was attached to the pilings. The two main advantages afforded by this method were a cost savings resulting from the exclusion of the mud mats and the use of less jacket material due to improved structural support. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of infringement and awarded Riles $8.7 million in damages.the Damages Case Riles' damages expert prepared three economic models which he used to support his damages position. In ruling on the case, the Federal Circuit could have relied on any of the three models as support for the jury's award, but found insufficient evidence to support any of the three models. Economic Model #1 The first model calculated damages by applying a 2 to 5 percent royalty rate to the entire cost of

2 Shell's platform. The model was based on the assumption that Shell's construction of a platform utilizing the patented method could result in an injunction on behalf of Riles, thus forcing Shell to either abandon the $84 million platform or pay a percentage of the total cost as a royalty. Economic Model #2 The second model claimed that Riles deserved a 2 to 5 percent royalty on the gross revenue generated by the platform in its first year of production. Similar to the first economic model, the second model assumed that Riles could enjoin Shell from using the platform. Under such a scenario, Shell would have been willing to pay a percentage of its revenues for use of the patent. Economic Model #3 The third model simply added the first two models together while providing no actual basis for their combination. In dismissing the first two models the Federal Circuit identified two key flaws. First, assuming that an injunction would be granted was legally incorrect. There was insufficient evidence to support an injunction on the use of the Spirit platform, merely because of its method of construction. Second, and more economically important, the Court concluded that the "market" would pay Riles only for his patented product. Therefore, it was incorrect to apply a royalty rate to the entire cost of the platform or the platform's overall revenues. The Court rightly stated that there was no relationship between the patented method and the total cost of the platform or its revenues. In forming its opinion, the Federal Circuit found that, in a hypothetical negotiation, Shell would have had non-infringing alternative methods for installing the platform. Thus, the negotiation would have been driven by the economic relationship between the patented method and the non-infringing alternative methods. Finally, the Federal Circuit found that the third model compounded the errors in the first two models and therefore found no basis on which it could be supported. This case is an excellent example of the need and importance of a fully supported and economically sound damages model. In complex cases involving complex business decisions, such as today's patent infringement cases, it is of utmost importance that damages calculations and their related issues are not looked at in a vacuum. Rather, a well rounded, defensible opinion must consider all relevant facts, evidence, and circumstances of each particular situation surrounding the alleged infringement. From that perspective, this case contains many examples of critical facts/pieces of evidence that were indeed relevant to properly determine economic damages. Economic Relationships

3 The Federal Circuit emphasized that there must be an economic relationship between the patentin-suit and the damages model. In today's patent infringement lawsuits, the plaintiff can no longer propose an exorbitant damages claim in hopes of receiving a windfall from the jury. The Federal Circuit recognizes that the ownership of a valid patent does not necessarily mean that the infringer can be "held up for ransom". The damage figure must be tied to sound economic and accounting principles in assessing what monetary damages are due to the plaintiff. In this case, it is clear that this economic relationship is based on the cost savings that the patent offers. Clearly, the appropriate damages model should be grounded in an analysis of the cost savings achieved by Shell through its use of the '918 patent. By ruling that Riles could not hold Shell "over a barrel" through the enforcement of its patent, the Court concluded that the value of the benefits provided by the invention must be limited to the invention itself and not the cost and/or benefit of the entire platform. However, under a different set of facts and circumstances, a patented component may equate to greater economic value. Often discussed as the "entire market value rule", this concept addresses situations where a patent covers only part of a product but is of such paramount importance that it substantially creates the value of the entire product. In such cases, it may then be appropriate for the patentee to recover damages based on the entire product. Again, the key is to analyze the substantive relationship between the patent-in-suit and the infringing product and to consider all relevant evidence and facts related to each specific case. Next Best Alternative The Federal Circuit also identified the critical importance of determining the alternatives available to each of the parties at the time of the hypothetical negotiation. In that regard, it is assumed that both parties would have had knowledge of those alternatives and, as such, would have negotiated a royalty that is consistent economically with those options. Generally, when the value of the invention is limited to the cost savings it produces, the additional cost to the infringer for using its "next best alternative" creates an economic cap to the amount it would pay for use of the patented invention. Although this basic concept is straight forward, this analysis quickly becomes very complex in infringement lawsuits, as the factual evidence must determine the alternatives' total cost, availability, quality, market acceptance, timing, etc. Again, the Riles case provides a useful example. Although some evidence was presented at trial that mud mats were an available alternative and would have cost Shell an additional $350,000; there was conflicting evidence that, due to certain geological conditions of the sea floor, mud mats were not an alternative. An appropriate economic model would have pursued this critical information through additional documents, deposition testimony, or market research. At a minimum, there would also be more questions to answer related to the additional material cost

4 savings the patented method may provide in determining the complete value afforded to Shell. Analyzing the parties' "next best alternative" is an important step and a simple concept to convey. However, the facts and evidence of each case make this economic principle extremely complex and difficult to model in many patent infringement cases. Licensing History Another important piece of economic evidence that the damages models did not incorporate was the historical licensing practices of the plaintiff, Riles. Although evidence was presented to suggest that Riles' past royalty rate agreements were based on either a percentage of savings that the licensee would have realized or a fee based on platform depth (potentially related to the cost savings associated with the invention), the plaintiff's damages models calculated a royalty based on the cost/benefit of the entire platform. Every damages model must be thoroughly entrenched in the facts of the case. The plaintiff simply cannot belie certain facts and evidence so as to create an inconsistent economic model. In this case the calculation not only runs contrary to the factual evidence, but it is also inconsistent with the first of the 15 factors set forth in Georgia Pacific v. United States Plywood Corp. which is focused on "the royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent-in-suit (proving or tending to prove an established royalty)." From the Federal Circuit's opinion it is clear that all available evidence must be considered in developing economic and accounting damages models. Other Lessons Learned From the Riles Decision: Understand the key assumptions that drive any damages model. Be aware of the source of those assumptions along with their defensibility and potential impact on the damages calculation. Question and critically challenge key assumptions whenever possible Monitor the analysis throughout the entire process to understand the direction and general methodology employed. Also, be prepared to obtain additional discovery if required, so that legal schedules and deadlines don't preclude the collection of valuable economic and accounting information. Question any alternative theories that may have been considered. Understand why those alternative theories are not applicable. Inquire into and challenge the ultimate conclusions of the damages model. Conclusion The Federal Circuit's decision in this case is an excellent reminder for professionals responsible for working with damages models. As has been addressed in previous decisions, this opinion once again stresses the importance of creating strategically sound damages models that are not

5 only supported by the specific facts, circumstances, and evidence present, but also grounded in economic principles and "real world" analyses.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 21 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1553, -1569 WILLIAM G. RILES, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Jonathan

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

Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND Commitments and Obligations for Standards-Essential Patents

Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND Commitments and Obligations for Standards-Essential Patents Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND Commitments and Obligations for Standards-Essential Patents Hosted by: Methodological Overview of FRAND Rate Determination

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DAUBERT ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DAUBERT ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ZIILABS INC., LTD., v. Plaintiff, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., ET AL., Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-203-JRG-RSP

More information

With our compliments. By Yury Kapgan, Shanaira Udwadia, and Brandon Crase

With our compliments. By Yury Kapgan, Shanaira Udwadia, and Brandon Crase Article Reprint With our compliments The Law of Patent Damages: Who Will Have the Final Say? By Yury Kapgan, Shanaira Udwadia, and Brandon Crase Reprinted from Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal

More information

Case 6:08-cv LED Document 363 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 6:08-cv LED Document 363 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Case 6:08-cv-00325-LED Document 363 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION REEDHYCALOG UK, LTD. and REEDHYCALOG, LP vs. Plaintiffs,

More information

Patent Experimental Use 1998 Frederic M. Douglas. All Rights Reserved.

Patent Experimental Use 1998 Frederic M. Douglas. All Rights Reserved. Patent Experimental Use 1998 Frederic M. Douglas. All Rights Reserved. fdouglas@cox.net INTRODUCTION Imagine that you are a car mechanic. You notice that engine coolant frequently corrodes a part of the

More information

Patent Damages Post Festo

Patent Damages Post Festo Page 1 of 6 Patent Damages Post Festo 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 Law360, New

More information

Remedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General

Remedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General VI. Remedies: Injunction and Damages 1. General If infringement is found and validity of the patent is not denied by the court, then the patentee is entitled to the remedies of both injunction and damages

More information

Case 6:16-cv PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066

Case 6:16-cv PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066 Case 6:16-cv-00366-PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PAICE LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:04-CV-211 MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

FEDERAL CIRCUIT REFINES RULES FOR APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES

FEDERAL CIRCUIT REFINES RULES FOR APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES Spring 2018 Spring 2017 FEDERAL CIRCUIT REFINES RULES FOR APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES The Federal Circuit recently decided two patent infringement cases where they overturned

More information

Economic Damages in IP Litigation

Economic Damages in IP Litigation Economic Damages in IP Litigation September 22, 2016 HCBA, Intellectual Property Section Steven S. Oscher, CPA /ABV/CFF, CFE Oscher Consulting, P.A. Lost Profits Reasonable Royalty * Patent Utility X X

More information

Speaker and Panelists 7/17/2013. The Honorable James L. Robart. Featured Speaker: Panelists: Moderator:

Speaker and Panelists 7/17/2013. The Honorable James L. Robart. Featured Speaker: Panelists: Moderator: Updates in Determining RAND for Standards Essential Patents: Featuring The Honorable James L. Robart July 12, 2013 Washington State Patent Law Association IP Committee of the Federal Bar Association for

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

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

Putting on a Reasonable Royalty Case in Light of the Federal Circuit s Apple v. Motorola

Putting on a Reasonable Royalty Case in Light of the Federal Circuit s Apple v. Motorola Putting on a Reasonable Royalty Case in Light of the Federal Circuit s Apple v. Motorola Mark P. Wine, Orrick William C. Rooklidge, Jones Day Samuel T. Lam, Jones Day 1 35 USC 284 Upon finding for the

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORDER REQUIRING AXCESS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EXPERT ANALYSIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORDER REQUIRING AXCESS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EXPERT ANALYSIS Case 3:10-cv-01033-F Document 272 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID 10827 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, Case No.3:10-cv-1033-F

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G. DAVID JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Petitioners. 2014-134 On Petition

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 186 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 17113 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. PANDORA MEDIA,

More information

A Back-To-Basics Approach To Patent Damages Law

A Back-To-Basics Approach To Patent Damages Law 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 A Back-To-Basics Approach To Patent Damages

More information

U.S. Patent Damages After Uniloc: Problems of Proof, Persuasion and Procedure

U.S. Patent Damages After Uniloc: Problems of Proof, Persuasion and Procedure U.S. Patent Damages After Uniloc: Problems of Proof, Persuasion and Procedure Robert J. Goldman Fordham IP Institute 2012 LLP This information should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion

More information

SO YOU THINK YOU HAD THE INVENTION IN PRIOR USE i

SO YOU THINK YOU HAD THE INVENTION IN PRIOR USE i SO YOU THINK YOU HAD THE INVENTION IN PRIOR USE i Patent lawyers frequently hear clients react to the patents of competitors with words like that s old! We were doing that years ago. Plaintiffs patent

More information

Prathiba M. Singh President, APAA (Indian Group)

Prathiba M. Singh President, APAA (Indian Group) Prathiba M. Singh President, APAA (Indian Group) Section 108 relates to relief in a suit for infringement Section 108(1) provides for Damages or Account of Profits At the option of the Plaintiff Section

More information

The Federal and 9 th Circuits Have Spoken: How (or How Not) to Calculate RAND Royalties for Standard- Essential Patents David Killough Microsoft

The Federal and 9 th Circuits Have Spoken: How (or How Not) to Calculate RAND Royalties for Standard- Essential Patents David Killough Microsoft The Federal and 9 th Circuits Have Spoken: How (or How Not) to Calculate RAND Royalties for Standard- Essential Patents David Killough Microsoft Corporation December 11, 2015 1 Interoperability Standards

More information

Before MICHEL, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Before MICHEL, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1155 MICRO CHEMICAL, INC., Plaintiff- Appellee, v. LEXTRON, INC. and TURNKEY COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants- Appellants. Gregory A. Castanias,

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

Freedom to Operate and Selected Issues

Freedom to Operate and Selected Issues Freedom to Operate and Selected Issues March 9, 2010 Presented by: Cary A. Levitt My principal business consists of giving commercial value to the brilliant, but misdirected, ideas of others... Accordingly,

More information

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

case has unique facts, concerns, and legal issues. You must consider many competing

case has unique facts, concerns, and legal issues. You must consider many competing Section of Labor and Employment Law American Bar Association Chicago, IL, August 8, 2005 Tamika Lynch Counsel, TIAA-CREF WHAT IS MY CASE WORTH EVALUATING EMPLOYMENT CASES Evaluating what an employment

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION E2E PROCESSING, INC., Plaintiff, v. CABELA S INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-36-JRG-RSP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

More information

Overview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence

Overview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence July 21, 2016 Drew DeVoogd, Member Patent Trial Proceedings in the United States In patent matters, trials typically occur in the federal

More information

Case 2:11-cv JRG Document 608 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 32534

Case 2:11-cv JRG Document 608 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 32534 Case 2:11-cv-00068-JRG Document 608 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 32534 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WI-LAN INC., Plaintiff, v. HTC CORP.,

More information

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Jury Instructions on Apportionment of Patent Damages By Kimberly J. Schenk and John G. Plumpe

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Jury Instructions on Apportionment of Patent Damages By Kimberly J. Schenk and John G. Plumpe Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Jury Instructions on Apportionment of Patent Damages By Kimberly J. Schenk and John G. Plumpe I. Introduction The recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Ericsson

More information

White Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012

White Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012 White Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012 1. Introduction The U.S. patent laws are predicated on the constitutional goal to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing

More information

Case 9:07-cv RC Document 181 Filed 03/06/2009 Page 1 of 11 ** NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION **

Case 9:07-cv RC Document 181 Filed 03/06/2009 Page 1 of 11 ** NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION ** Case 9:07-cv-00104-RC Document 181 Filed 03/06/2009 Page 1 of 11 ** NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION ** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION HEARING COMPONENTS,

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

When a plaintiff believes that its trademark

When a plaintiff believes that its trademark Determining An Appropriate Royalty Rate For Reasonable Royalty Trademark Damages A Modified Georgia-Pacific Framework By David Drews When a plaintiff believes that its trademark has been infringed, an

More information

Problems With Hypothesizing Reasonable Royalty Negotiation

Problems With Hypothesizing Reasonable Royalty Negotiation 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 Problems With Hypothesizing Reasonable Royalty Negotiation

More information

IP ENFORCEMENT IN CHINA

IP ENFORCEMENT IN CHINA IP ENFORCEMENT IN CHINA -STRATEGY AND PRACTICAL TIPS Yalei Sun Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP January 28, 2016 Proposed 4 th Amendment to Chinese Patent Law within 30 years 2 Outstanding Problems of Patent

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

Recent Trends in Patent Damages

Recent Trends in Patent Damages Recent Trends in Patent Damages Presentation for The Austin Intellectual Property Law Association Jose C. Villarreal May 19, 2015 These materials reflect the personal views of the speaker, are not legal

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 10 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. 0-CV-00 H (CAB) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER N THE UNTED STATES DSTRCT COURT FOR THE DSTRCT OF DELAWARE MiiCs & PARTNERS, NC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, FUNA ELECTRC CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 14-804-RGA SAMSUNG DSPLAY CO., LTD.,

More information

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist For cases originally filed in federal court, is there an anchor claim, over which the court has personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction? If not,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TELA INNOVATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED and TSMC NORTH AMERICA, Defendants. C.A. No. JURY

More information

Patent Invalidation Defense v. Correction of Claims Counter-Assertion in Patent Infringement Litigation

Patent Invalidation Defense v. Correction of Claims Counter-Assertion in Patent Infringement Litigation Patent Invalidation Defense v. of Claims Counter-Assertion in Patent Infringement Litigation January 27, 2009 TMI Associates Yoshi Inaba Current Situation for Patent Infringement Litigation 2 1 Latest

More information

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act

More information

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING 43 rd World Intellectual Property Congress Seoul, Korea WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING October 21, 2012 John Kim* Admitted to practice in Maryland, the District of Columbia,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) Plaintiff,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT TOSHIBA CORPORATION AND TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus

More information

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING May 25, 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING May 25, 2018 P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 10, ISSUE 18 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING May 25, 2018 Artrip v. Ball Corp., Case No. 2018-1277 (May 23, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 5,660,516,

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

By Charles F. Schill, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Jamie B. Beaber, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

By Charles F. Schill, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Jamie B. Beaber, Steptoe & Johnson LLP ENSURIING SUCCESSFUL CLAIIM CONSTRUCTIION AND SUMMARY DETERMIINATIION: HOW TO OBTAIIN THE RESULTS YOU WANT By Charles F. Schill, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Jamie B. Beaber, Steptoe & Johnson LLP - 1 - ENSSURIING

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes

More information

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059

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

Injunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patents

Injunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patents Litigation Webinar Series: INSIGHTS Our take on litigation and trial developments across the U.S. Injunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patents David Healey Sr. Principal, Fish & Richardson Houston,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:12-cv-654; 1:13-cv-324 -v- ) ) HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS

More information

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 441 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 441 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 441 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY

More information

IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW APRIL/MAY 2016 Defendant damaged: A patent infringement case Thanks for the memory Clarifying the patent description requirement Whom are you confusing? Clear labeling

More information

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11 Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com AGILITY IP LAW, LLP Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park,

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TELA INNOVATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC., Defendants. C.A. No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT

More information

Case 1:15-cv MGC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:15-cv MGC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:15-cv-20702-MGC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 15-20702-Civ-COOKE/TORRES KELSEY O BRIEN and KATHLEEN

More information

The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series

The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The American civil judicial system is slow, and imperfect, but many times a victim s only recourse in attempting to me made whole after suffering an injury. This

More information

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 11 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6. this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The disposition will appear in tables published periodically United States Court of

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

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Royalty Rates, Vacating the Jury Award in Ericsson v.

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Royalty Rates, Vacating the Jury Award in Ericsson v. In this Issue: WRITTEN BY COURTNEY J. ARMOUR AND KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN EDITED BY KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN The views expressed in this e-bulletin are the views of the authors alone. DECEMBER 1-6, 2014 Federal

More information

Case4:07-cv PJH Document1171 Filed05/29/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case4:07-cv PJH Document1171 Filed05/29/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:0-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, No. C 0- PJH v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER SAP AG, et al.,

More information

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 Case 2:16-cv-00436 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MARINER IC INC., v. Plaintiff, TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

More information

DOMESTIC OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARKS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY

DOMESTIC OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARKS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY Protecting Your Trademarks In a Global Economy October, 2008 DOMESTIC OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARKS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY TRADEMARK LITIGATION VERSES CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE ITC by J. Daniel

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit http://finweb1/library/cafc/.htm Page 1 of 10 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RICHARD RUIZ and FOUNDATION ANCHORING SYSTEMS, INC., v. A.B. CHANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Defendant-Appellant.

More information

The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees

The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees BY ROBERT M. MASTERS & IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV November 2013 On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape

The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016

More information

BRIEF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

BRIEF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY No. 15-777 In the Supreme Court of the United States Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Petitioners, v. Apple Inc., Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LUMEN VIEW TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FINDTHEBEST.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1275, 2015-1325 Appeals from the United States District

More information

DAMAGES. Alistair Dawson BeckRedden, L.L.P. Trial and Appellate Attorneys. Andy Tindel MT² Law Group

DAMAGES. Alistair Dawson BeckRedden, L.L.P. Trial and Appellate Attorneys. Andy Tindel MT² Law Group DAMAGES Alistair Dawson BeckRedden, L.L.P. Trial and Appellate Attorneys Andy Tindel MT² Law Group Mann Tindel Thompson Early in a lawsuit, ask What damages are available for the claims I am asserting?

More information

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Case 2:15-cv-00501 Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 INTUITIVE BUILDING CONTROLS, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No.

More information

APLI Antitrust & Licensing Issues Panel: SEP Injunctions

APLI Antitrust & Licensing Issues Panel: SEP Injunctions APLI Antitrust & Licensing Issues Panel: SEP Injunctions Robert D. Fram Covington & Burling LLP Advanced Patent Law Institute Palo Alto, California December 11, 2015 1 Disclaimer The views set forth on

More information

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

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

More information

States Still Fighting Bad-Faith Patent Infringement Claims

States Still Fighting Bad-Faith Patent Infringement Claims November 25, 2014 States Still Fighting Bad-Faith Patent Infringement Claims by Published in Law360 In June, we wrote about states efforts to fight patent assertion entities through consumer protection

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. et al Doc. 447 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL

More information

Supreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement

Supreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement Supreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement Courts May Award Foreign Lost Profits Where Infringement Is Based on the Export of Components of Patented Invention Under

More information

In this Issue. Dec 2015 Vol. 15. IP Update. Jiaquan IP Law Firm. Chinese C919 Airliner is Rolled-out. 1. IP Update

In this Issue. Dec 2015 Vol. 15. IP Update. Jiaquan IP Law Firm. Chinese C919 Airliner is Rolled-out. 1. IP Update Dec 2015 Vol. 15 In this Issue 1. IP Update 2. Defense of Legitimate Source in Patent Infringement Litigation Jiaquan IP Law Firm Add: Suite 910, Tower A Winner Plaza 100 Huangpu Avenue W. Guangzhou, 510627

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

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

Denver Bar Association Principles of Professionalism

Denver Bar Association Principles of Professionalism Denver Bar Association Principles of Professionalism Adopted by the Denver Bar Association Board of Trustees on April 8, 1999; as amended May 2007. DENVER BAR ASSOCIATION Denver Bar Association Principles

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:09-CV-29-O ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:09-CV-29-O ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:09-CV-29-O PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA

More information

Case 4:10-cv Y Document 23 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID 156

Case 4:10-cv Y Document 23 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID 156 Case 4:10-cv-00116-Y Document 23 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID 156 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION NASH MANUFACTURING, INC. d/b/a NASH SPORTS, vs.

More information

IP LICENSING COMMITTEE MODEL LICENSING CLAUSES BULLETIN

IP LICENSING COMMITTEE MODEL LICENSING CLAUSES BULLETIN IP LICENSING COMMITTEE MODEL LICENSING CLAUSES BULLETIN This paper was created by the Intellectual Property Owners Association IP Licensing Committee to provide background to IPO members. It should not

More information

Federal Circuit Provides Roadmap for Patent Actions at the ITC by Non-Practicing Entities

Federal Circuit Provides Roadmap for Patent Actions at the ITC by Non-Practicing Entities Federal Circuit Provides Roadmap for Patent Actions at the ITC by Non-Practicing Entities This article first appeared in the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, February 2012.

More information

July 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon

July 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its

More information

Daniel L. Bates, Geoffrey A. Mantooth, Decker, Jones, McMackin, McClane, Hall & Bates, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Daniel L. Bates, Geoffrey A. Mantooth, Decker, Jones, McMackin, McClane, Hall & Bates, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiffs. United States District Court, W.D. Texas. HARBISON-FISCHER, INC., et. al, Plaintiffs. v. JWD INTERNATIONAL, et. al, Defendants. No. MO-07-CA-58-H Dec. 19, 2008. Daniel L. Bates, Geoffrey A. Mantooth, Decker,

More information

April 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea:

April 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea: The Honorable Teresa S. Rea Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop OPEA P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA

More information