Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
|
|
- Marian Martin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY Phone: Fax: Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages Law360, New York (March 02, 2009) -- The Supreme Court in ebay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) overturned the Federal Circuit s general rule of automatically issuing a permanent injunction after a finding of patent infringement.[1] District courts must now exercise equitable discretion in deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction, and decisions regarding the issuance of permanent injunctions must be analyzed under the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief.[2] Since ebay, numerous district court cases have applied the four-factor test, and, as a result, permanent injunctions have become more difficult to obtain.[3] In approximately one-fourth of post-ebay decisions, no injunction was obtained.[4] This trend represents a remarkable change from the pre-ebay world. The ebay decision significantly altered the landscape for assessing damages. Because patent holders can no longer rely on the issuance of permanent injunctions, their leverage in negotiating damages settlements or licensing agreements after a finding of liability may be substantially reduced. Moreover, ebay requires district courts to deal with the issue of future damages. Traditionally, monetary damages were available to the patentee for past infringement while injunctive relief protected the patentee from future infringement. But now, a patentee may prevail on its patent infringement claim and be denied a permanent injunction, leaving no recourse to prevent the infringer from continuing its infringement in the future. The current damages law of course deals extensively with compensation to a patent owner for past infringement.[5] But, the Patent Act is silent on future damages.
2 In the wake of ebay, district courts are now struggling with how to impose and measure future damages. How is the patent holder to be fairly compensated for the future of its invention? How should a future royalty be determined? What is the district court s authority for awarding an ongoing royalty? These are emerging issues that we will address in this paper.[6] District Courts Have the Authority to Award an Ongoing Royalty Where Necessary to Effectuate a Remedy The Federal Circuit has found the authority to award an ongoing royalty in 35 U.S.C Section 283 empowers the district courts to grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent. [7] In Paice v. Toyota Motor Corporation, the Federal Circuit described this issue as whether an ongoing royalty permitting the use of a patented invention in exchange for a royalty prevents the violation of the rights secured by the patent.[8] The court looked to antitrust law and found that reasonable royalty licensing of patents is a well established form of relief. [9] Thus, an ongoing royalty is appropriate where necessary to effectuate a remedy.[10] The court made it clear, however, that an ongoing royalty is not justified as a matter of course whenever a permanent injunction is denied. Several parties have argued that this approach to ongoing royalties denies the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.[11] The Seventh Amendment provides that in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. [12] Although the Federal Circuit has not firmly decided this issue, Paice implies that an ongoing royalty need not be determined by a jury. Subsequently, the Northern District of California followed this result, explaining that [t]he Federal Circuit s disposition in Paice suggests that it would be permissible for this Court to determine, after an evidentiary hearing, a reasonable rate for an ongoing royalty. [13] The court concluded that it may consider evidence and set an ongoing royalty rate without violating the Seventh Amendment. A License Agreement is Preferred to an Ongoing Royalty Some courts suggest that, before an ongoing royalty is imposed, the parties should attempt to negotiate a license.
3 The Federal Circuit addressed this issue in Paice, where the court reviewed the district court s imposition of an ongoing royalty rate of $25 per accused vehicle, noting that an ongoing royalty rate is not automatic whenever a permanent injunction is denied. For example, an ongoing royalty is not necessary where the parties negotiate the terms of a license themselves. The court suggested that a negotiated license is the preferred remedy in most cases. Then, if the parties fail to come to an agreement, a court could step in to assess a reasonable royalty based on the ongoing infringement. In a concurring opinion in Paice, Judge Rader recommended that the parties always be given the opportunity to negotiate a license before the district court orders an ongoing royalty: "This general principle has deep roots in both law and policy. Projecting the costs to be incurred for what would otherwise be future acts of infringement is necessarily a speculative exercise, even for the most stable markets and technologies. "As licenses are driven largely by business objectives, the parties to a license are better situated than the courts to arrive at fair and efficient terms. After all, it is the parties, rather than the court, that will be bound by the terms of the royalty. "Particularly in the case of the patentee, who has proven infringement of its property right, an opportunity to negotiate its own ongoing royalty is a minimal protection for its rights extending for the remainder of the patent term."[14] Several district courts have followed the reasoning of Paice. In Finisar Corp. v. DirecTVGroup Inc., Finisar was awarded $104 million in damages by a jury and moved for a permanent injunction.[15} The Eastern District of Texas denied the motion for injunctive relief and granted an ongoing royalty. In its final judgment order, the court ordered defendants to pay an ongoing royalty rate of $1.60 per infringing device for the life of the infringed patent. Although the judgment order was brief, the court made a point to encourage the parties to license for more comprehensive or convenient terms. Like Paice, the court in Finisar recognized that the parties were sophisticated entities with experience in licensing agreements. In a more recent opinion, Telcordia Technologies Inc. v. Cisco Systems, the District of Delaware followed Judge Rader s approach.[16] After a jury returned a verdict against Cisco for willful infringement, Telcordia was denied a permanent injunction. Instead of ordering the payment of an ongoing royalty,
4 however, the court ordered the parties to negotiate the terms of a reasonable ongoing royalty rate. If the parties failed to reach an agreement, the court said that it would then asses the merits of the competing proposals. All of these cases exhibit a strong preference of the courts for license agreements between the parties over ongoing royalties imposed by the court. An Ongoing Royalty Rate Must be Based on Additional Factors Beyond the Jury s Reasonable Royalty Rate The determination of an ongoing royalty rate is different from the reasonable royalty rate determined by the jury. In Paice, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the case because the district court did not evaluate the additional economic factors arising out of the imposition of an ongoing royalty. The district court awarded the reasonable royalty rate determined by the jury as the ongoing royalty rate without significant discussion. The court only mentioned that the reasonable royalty rate determined by the jury was appropriate for future damages because [t]he jury, based on the entire record, determined an appropriate reasonable royalty rate that can be easily calculated on future sales of the accused devices thereby removing uncertainty from future damages calculations. [17] Beyond this statement, the court gave no indication as to why that rate was appropriate. In a more recent case, Boston Scientific v. Johnson & Johnson, Judge Illston of the Northern District of California explained that the change in the parties bargaining positions and the resulting change in economic circumstances resulting from the determination of liability are important factors to consider.[18] These cases suggest that it is not permissible for a court simply to assign the reasonable royalty rate determined by the jury as the ongoing royalty rate, without more. A specific inquiry must be made about the ongoing reasonable royalty rate to ensure that it will adequately compensate the patent holder for future infringement. A Delayed Injunction May be an Alternative to an Ongoing Royalty Rather than immediately awarding a permanent injunction or ongoing royalty rate for future infringement, perhaps the courts should allow for a transition period that would allow infringers to switch to non-infringing alternatives.
5 In Schneider AG v. SciMed Life Systems, the infringer produced a catheter that was strongly preferred by surgeons in the industry.[19] Instead of immediately entering a permanent injunction, the court imposed a one-year delay before the injunction would take effect.[20]the court reasoned that the year-long delay would allow surgeons to switch to non-infringing alternatives. In the meantime, the court provided for an escalating royalty rate during the one-year delay. This remedy balanced the right of the patentee to compensation for its invention and the public interest in an efficient and non-disruptive changeover from the preferred infringing medical device and other non-infringing alternatives. A Finding of Willful Infringement May Entitle a Patentee to an Enhanced Ongoing Royalty In the context of willful patent infringement, a court might order an ongoing enhanced royalty for future infringement. One could argue that this approach would mitigate the harshness of an injunction against the infringement, while providing patent holders with an equitable remedy. The z4 and Voda courts invited the parties to brief the issues relating to future damages, and required the defendants to report quarterly sales in the interim.[21] In both cases, the defendants infringed willfully and indicated an intention to continue their infringing activities after trial. Arguably, the willful infringement verdict entitled the patentees to enhanced damages for any infringement going forward. The Voda court cautioned that absent establishment of an escrow account, prejudgment interest will accrue on any post-verdict infringement damages, but it did not specifically address whether enhanced damages would apply to the ongoing royalty.[22] How do courts determine an ongoing royalty for an infringer who is not found to have willfully infringed? Again, there is certainly an argument that the infringement verdict, even though not finding willfulness, should trigger enhanced damages for future infringement because an infringer can no longer claim it was unaware of its infringing conduct with an infringement verdict in hand. No court to date, however, has awarded a patent owner treble damages for future infringement. In summary, the Federal Circuit and a handful of district courts have laid out several important guideposts for dealing with the issue of future damages where no injunction is issued.
6 First, the Federal Circuit has held that the district courts have the statutory authority to award an ongoing royalty. Although the district courts have this authority, an ongoing royalty is not automatic as soon as a permanent injunction is denied. Second, the courts prefer a license agreement negotiated by the parties over imposing an ongoing royalty on the parties. Third, the determination of ongoing royalty must be based on factors beyond the reasonable royalty rate set by the jury. In the future, courts may consider issuing delayed injunctions as an alternative to ongoing damages or awarding ongoing treble damages for willfulness to deter future infringement. --By Harry J. Roper and Emily C. Johnson, Jenner & Block LLP Harry Roper is a partner with Jenner & Block in the firm's Chicago office. Emily Johnson is an associate in the firm's Chicago office. Associate Michael G. Babbitt assisted in writing this paper. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Portfolio Media, publisher of Law360. [1} ebay v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006). [2] Id. at 391 ( To obtain a permanent injunction, a patent holder must demonstrate that: (1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) no adequate remedy at law (such as damages) exists; (3) the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant warrants a remedy in equity; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. ). [3] See Patent Litigation Statistics, Post ebay Permanent Injunction Rulings By District Courts to 1/07/09, available at (last visited Jan. 22, 2009). [4] Id. (showing that district courts denied 20 out of 80 permanent injunctions between 5/15/06 and 1/7/09). [5] See, e.g., Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp (S.D.N.Y. 1970). [6] The law is substantially more developed post-ebay as to when injunctions should or should not issue. While this topic is beyond the scope of this paper, we have summarized some of the more recent decisions in the Appendix. [7] 35 U.S.C. 283 (West 2009).
7 [8] Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007). [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at ; Boston Scientific v. Johnson & Johnson, No , at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2008). [12] U.S. Const. amend. VII. [13] Boston Scientific, No at *4-5. [14] Id. at [15] Finisar Corp. v. DirecTVGroup Inc., No (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2006) (final judgment order). [16] Telcordia Tech. Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 2009 WL 32717, at *15 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2009). [17] Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Co., 2006 WL , at *5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2006), vacated and remanded, 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007). [18] Boston Scientific, No , at *7 (citing Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). [19] Schneider AG v. SciMed Life Sys., 852 F. Supp. 813, (D. Minn. 1994). [20] Id. at [21] z4 Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 437, (E.D. Tex. 2006); Voda v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WL , at *6 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 5, 2006). [22] Voda, 2006 WL , at *6.
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 informationInjunctions, 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 informationInfringement 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 informationAn 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 informationFed. 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 informationAN ANALYTIC STUDY ON PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN PATENT LITIGATIONS Huang-Chih Sung
DOI:10.6521/NTUTJIPLM.2015.4(2).2 AN ANALYTIC STUDY ON PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN PATENT LITIGATIONS Huang-Chih Sung ABSTRACT This paper conducted an analytic study to realize how the Federal Courts in the
More informationThe 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 informationThe Aftermath of ebay: Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 22 Issue 1 Article 5 January 2007 The Aftermath of ebay: Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Jeremy Mulder Follow this
More informationIN 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 informationNew Local Patent Rules In Northern District Of Ill.
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 New Local Patent Rules In Northern District
More informationPatent 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 informationInjunctive Relief in the Post-Ebay World
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 23 Issue 1 Article 9 January 2008 Injunctive Relief in the Post-Ebay World Benjamin Petersen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj
More informationEBAY 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 informationSUPREME 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 informationTHE 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 informationMarketa Trimble Injunctive Relief, Equity, and Misuse of Rights
Injunctive Relief, Equity, and Misuse of Rights 33. Tagung für Rechtsvergleichung Grenzen der Rechtsdurchsetzung im Immaterialgüterrecht 16 September 2011 [T]he very essence of the right conferred by the
More informationCase 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 informationCase: 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 informationPatent 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 informationWith 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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND THOMAS J. SHAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BECTON DICKINSON, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1567 Appeal from the United
More informationOngoing Royalties for Patent Infringement
Ongoing Royalties for Patent Infringement J. Gregory Sidak * I. Introduction... 163 II. Is an Ongoing Royalty an Equitable Remedy?... 166 A. Equitable Remedies and Remedies at Law... 166 B. The Legal Basis
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ~ ) Civil Action No. 02-1694 GMS ) TYCO HEALTH CARE GROUP LP, ) ) Defendant. ) I. INTRODUCTION
More informationThe source of American patent law, Article I, section 8, of
When Exclusive is not Exclusive and Compulsory not Compulsory: ebay v. MercExchange and Paice v. Toyota By David L. Applegate* The source of American patent law, Article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution,
More informationSouthern Methodist University. From the SelectedWorks of Lance E Wyatt Jr. Lance E Wyatt, Jr. Winter 2014
Southern Methodist University From the SelectedWorks of Lance E Wyatt Jr. Winter 2014 Rebuttable Presumption of Public Interest in Protecting the Public Health The Necessity for Denying Injunctive Relief
More informationPatent Infringement Remedies An Overview and Update 1
Patent Infringement Remedies An Overview and Update 1 I. INTRODUCTION Whether you seek monetary damages, an injunction ordering the cessation of infringement, or a declaration that there is no infringement,
More informationChicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 12 9-1-2013 Rebuttable Presumption of Public Interest in Protecting the Public Health --The Necessity for Denying Injunctive Relief
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-107 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2017 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: GOOGLE INC., Petitioner 2017-107 On Petition for Writ
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. AHMET MATT OZCAN d/b/a HESSLA, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1656-JRG
More informationLife Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune. Roadmap for Presentation
Life Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune MedImmune: R. Brian McCaslin, Esq. Christopher Verni, Esq. March 9, 2009 clients but may be representative
More informationBroadcam Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. 543 F.3D 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 19 Issue 1 Fall 2008 Article 9 Broadcam Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. 543 F.3D 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Ryan Schermerhorn Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, ) Secretary of Labor, United States Department ) of Labor, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) STATE OF ALASKA, Department
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
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 The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
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 Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationAfter ebay, Inc. v. MercExchange: The Changing Landscape for Patent Remedies
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 9 Issue 2 Article 5 2008 After ebay, Inc. v. MercExchange: The Changing Landscape for Patent Remedies Bernard H. Chao Follow this and additional works
More informationTC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction
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 TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation
More informationInjunctive 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 informationCase 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 informationA 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 informationCase 1:12-cv PBS Document 1769 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Document 1769 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, Consolidated Civil Action No. v. 12-11935-PBS
More informationReeling in the Patent Troll: Was Ebay v. MercExchange Enough?
Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 14 Issue 2 Article 5 April 2007 Reeling in the Patent Troll: Was Ebay v. MercExchange Enough? Damian Myers University of Georgia School of Law Follow this and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION VOILÉ MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiff, ORDER and MEMORANDUM DECISION vs. LOUIS DANDURAND and BURNT MOUNTAIN DESIGNS, LLC, Case
More informationProblems 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 informationCase 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 informationIN 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 informationCase 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,
Case 116-cv-03852-JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- COMCAST CORPORATION,
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
More informationPutting 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 informationInjunctions 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 informationData Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future Injury Risk
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 Data Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future
More informationInjunctive 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 informationPleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
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 Pleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
More informationThe 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 76 Filed 05/14/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SPEECHNOW.ORG, DAVID KEATING, FRED M. YOUNG, JR., EDWARD H. CRANE, III, BRAD RUSSO,
More informationIN 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 information2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo
2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo Law360, New York (January 18, 2017, 12:35 PM EST) This article analyzes how district courts have addressed the sufficiency of pleading enhanced damages
More informationThe Willful Infringement Standard: Notes on its Development, Impact, and Future Trends. By Leora Ben-Ami and Aaron Nathan
The Willful Infringement Standard: Notes on its Development, Impact, and Future Trends By Leora Ben-Ami and Aaron Nathan I. INTRODUCTION The concept of enhanced damages in not new to patent law. The Patent
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3745-N PLANO ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant.
More informationBRIEF 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Bianco MD vs Globus Medical Inc Doc. 269 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SABATINO BIANCO, M.D., Plaintiff, v. GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC., Defendant. Case
More informationPatent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses The Role of Patent Remedies and Antitrust Law in Dealing with Patent Holdups
Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses The Role of Patent Remedies and Antitrust Law in Dealing with Patent Holdups [abridged from 34 J. Corp. Law (forthcoming July 2009)] March 10, 2009
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No SLR ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BELDEN TECHNOLOGIES INC. and BELDEN CDT (CANADA INC., v. Plaintiffs, SUPERIOR ESSEX COMMUNICATIONS LP and SUPERIOR ESSEX INC., Defendants.
More informationFederal 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 informationCase 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 informationOklahoma 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 5:07-cv-00156-DF-CMC Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ESN, LLC, v. Plaintiff, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-1374 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TIVO INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ECHOSPHERE LIMITED
More informationIn their initial and amended complaints, the plaintiffs, who are beneficiaries of
Cunningham v. Cornell University et al Doc. 198 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x CASEY CUNNINGHAM, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of KLAUSTECH, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 JSW v. ADMOB, INC., Defendant. / ORDER DENYING
More informationIN 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 informationNTT 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 informationAppeal Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
Case: 13-1150 Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2014 Appeal Nos. 2013-1150, -1182 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
More informationUNITED 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationIn 5th Circ., Time Is Not On SEC s Side
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 In 5th Circ., Time Is Not On SEC s Side Law360, New
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:619
Case: 1:12-cv-07163 Document #: 22 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:619 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION TORY BURCH LLC; RIVER LIGHT V, L.P.,
More informationNorthern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules
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 Northern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules Law360,
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationSeeking Disapproval: Presidential Review Of ITC Orders
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 Seeking Disapproval: Presidential Review Of ITC Orders
More informationDefending Against Inducement Claims Post-Commil
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 Defending Against Inducement Claims Post-Commil Law360,
More informationCase 1:09-cv SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-09790-SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) BRIESE LICHTTENCHNIK VERTRIEBS ) No. 09 Civ. 9790 GmbH, and HANS-WERNER BRIESE,
More informationWinning at the Outset: Improving Chances of Success on a Preliminary Injunction Motion. AIPLA Presentation October 2010 Lynda Zadra-Symes
Winning at the Outset: Improving Chances of Success on a Preliminary Injunction Motion AIPLA Presentation October 2010 Lynda Zadra-Symes TRO/Preliminary Injunction Powerful, often case-ending if successful
More informationExamining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB Cases: Part 2
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 Examining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB
More informationWhat s Willful Now? The Practical Impact of the Supreme Court s Halo v. Pulse Patent Willfulness Decision. June 2016
What s Willful Now? The Practical Impact of the Supreme Court s Halo v. Pulse Patent Willfulness Decision Andrew J. Pincus apincus@mayerbrown.com Brian A. Rosenthal brosenthal@mayerbrown.com June 2016
More informationPatent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and
Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling
More informationThe Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
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 The Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 INTEGRATED GLOBAL CONCEPTS, INC., v. Plaintiff, j GLOBAL, INC. and ADVANCED MESSAGING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case
More informationMicrosoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No )
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No. 10-290) What Will Be the Evidentiary Standard(s) for Proving Patent Invalidity in Future Court Cases? March 2011 COPYRIGHT 2011. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO
More informationCase 1:15-cv RGA Document 376 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-00839-RGA Document 376 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 14329 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AMGEN INC. and AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED, Plaintiffs,
More informationIN 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 informationThe 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 informationEquitable Concerns of ebay v. Mercexchange: Did the Supreme Court Successfully Balance Patent Protection against Patent Trolls
NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Volume 8 Issue 1 Fall 2006 Article 5 10-1-2006 Equitable Concerns of ebay v. Mercexchange: Did the Supreme Court Successfully Balance Patent Protection against
More informationThe Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation Defense
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 The Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CANCER RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED AND SCHERING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. AND BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationPatent Portfolio Licensing
Patent Portfolio Licensing Circling the wagons while internally running a licensing program By: Nainesh Shah CAIL - 53rd Annual Conference on IP Law November 17, 2015, Plano, TX All information provided
More informationNos , -1631, -1362, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ERICSSON, INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
Case: 13-1625 Case: CASE 13-1625 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 162 Document: Page: 1 150 Filed: Page: 03/12/2014 1 Filed: 02/27/2014 Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -1362, -1633 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationalg Doc 1331 Filed 06/06/12 Entered 06/06/12 15:56:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 16
Pg 1 of 16 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Suite 1800 4000 Town Center Southfield, Michigan 48075 Deborah Kovsky-Apap (DK 6147) Telephone: 248.359.7331 Facsimile: 313.731.1572 E-mail: kovskyd@pepperlaw.com PEPPER
More information