Transatlantic IP Seminar

Similar documents
European Patent Litigation: An overview

The Assertion of Patents in Germany. Dr. Roland Kehrwald Wildanger Kehrwald Graf v. Schwerin & Partner mbb

Design Protection in Europe

From Law of Patents, Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits, Plant Varieties, and Industrial Designs, Chapter Two:

Anti-Counterfeiting - Southern Africa

Trademark Rights; Overview of Provisions in the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement

Plan. 1. Implementation of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) into Belgian law. C. Belgian Code of Economic Law

POLICY ON INVENTIONS, PATENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Summa Health System Akron, Ohio

Litigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit

IP MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA: TRADEMARKS & DESIGNS

Patent Infringement Proceedings

Designs. Germany Henning Hartwig BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbb. A Global Guide

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

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION

9 The Enforcement of Patent Rights in Japan (*)

TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE

Germany. Henrik Holzapfel and Martin Königs. McDermott Will & Emery

Securing evidence in patent cases by means of inspection

Client Alert. Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Provisional Measures or Preliminary Evidence

TRIPS Article 28 Rights Conferred. 1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:

TITLE: IrDA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

How patents work An introduction for law students

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

Lohko for Android End User License Agreement

I. Preamble. Patent Policy Page 1 of 13

ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no "European" litigation system.

Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, No. 22 of 2014

TURKEY Industrial Design Law Decree-law No. 554 as amended by Law No of November 7, 1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: November 7, 1995

Patent and License Overview. Kirsten Leute, Senior Associate Office of Technology Licensing, Stanford University

LEGAL INFORMATION NEWSLETTER. No. 5 September, 2011

No. 30 of Patents and Industrial Designs Act Certified on: 19/1/2001.

IP Litigation in Life Sciences Germany 2016

PATENT ACT, B.E (1979) 1. BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 11 th Day of March B.E. 2522; Being the 34 th Year of the Present Reign

Latham & Watkins Finance Department

Latham & Watkins Finance Department

... Revision,

PATENT SYSTEM STATUS OFREFORMS

Training Materials Licensing Agreement

Latham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements

WEBSITE TERMS OF USE GLOBAL RESCUE S ( GR OR THE COMPANY ) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Patent Act, B.E (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E (1999) Translation

International Arbitration of Patent Disputes. M. Scott Donahey Arbitrator and Mediator Palo Alto

Presidion IBM SPSS Academic Licence Agreement

General Terms and Conditions (GTCs) Valid as of: 1 October 2016

edweek.org Premium Content Site License Agreement

USTOCKTRAIN TRADING SIMULATOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS

End User License Agreement

Software License Agreement

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

Act No. 8 of 2015 BILL

Overview economic research activities at the EPO 2013/2014

Client Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background

TRIUMF PATENT PLAN. TRIUMF Patent Plan. 1. General

Exclusions from patentability 15 Inventions contrary to public order or morality not patentable

FORUM OF INCIDENT RESPONSE AND SECURITY TEAMS, INC. UNIFORM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ( UNIFORM IPR ) POLICY

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

Client Alert. Rome II and the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. Introduction

"Designated Equipment" means the equipment specified in the Licence Details;

COMPULSORY LICENCE in Germany. Markus Rieck LL.M.

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 No., 2013

Trademark Protection in Europe

AON HEWITT DEFINED CONTRIBUTION NEXUS PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

Patent litigation. Block 3; Module National approaches to damages. Essentials

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

Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law

Multidistrict Litigation, Forum Selection and Transfer: Tips and Trends Julie M. Holloway Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP

NVM EXPRESS, INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY. Approved as of _November 21_, 2015 ( Effective Date ) by the Board of Directors of NVM Express

Patent Law in Cambodia

Damages United Kingdom perspective

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

If the scale of costs does not provide for any case, the Court or registrar may allow reasonable costs.

Case 1:16-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND PARTIES

Düsseldorf. KRIEGER GENTZ MES & GRAF v. der GROEBEN March 19, 2004 AIPPI

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)

Trends in U.S. Patent Law: Key Decisions from the Federal Circuit

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

Developing an International IP strategy. Leslie Prichard UK Chartered & European Patent Attorney European Design Attorney culverstons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 24 Filed: 05/16/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:499

National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS

Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009)

Case 2:14-cv JPM-tmp Document 1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING

LAWSON & PERSSON, P.C.

Contributing firm. Author Henning Hartwig

Regional Seminar for Certain African Countries on the Implementation and Use of Several Patent-Related Flexibilities

Date: 22 August Packaging Questionnaire. Questions

TITLE 26 TITLE 26 26:07 PREVIOUS CHAPTER INTEGRATED CIRCUIT LAYOUT-DESIGNS ACT

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code

Directors and Shareholders Reference Guide to Summary Proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery

Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act, B.E (2002)

Agreement for Supply of Services (short form)

SETTLEMENT & COEXISTENCE AGREEMENTS

- 1 - End-User License Agreement

Transcription:

Presentation Hamburg Tuesday, 21 June 2005 Paris Wednesday, 22 June 2005 London Thursday, 23 June 2005 Transatlantic IP Seminar Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted through an affiliated multinational partnership. Copyright 2005 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved.

Gerd Jaekel gerd.jaekel@lw.com +49-40-41-40-33-52 Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted through an affiliated multinational partnership. Copyright 2005 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved.

Overview Statutory Bases of Damages Calculation of Damages Procedural Law 121

: Statutes 139 II 1 PatG (Patent Act) 24 II 1 GebrMG (Utility Model Act) full damages 812 BGB (Civil Code) (without negligence) return of the unjustified enrichment 33 PatG (without granted patents) compensation 122

Statutory Bases ( 139 Patent Act / 24a Utility Model Act) Infringement of a granted patent of the claimant Claimant Registered owner Exclusive licensee Ordinary licensee in a representative action Defendant can be any person or entity infringing a patent Manufacturer Distributor User (if no private or privileged use) Contributory infringement by those providing means for the exploitation of a patent 123

Statutory Bases ( 139 Patent Act / 24a Utility Model Act) Negligence Market participants must conduct patent searches (Federal Supreme Court Diarähmchen I ) Scale of searches and efforts to identify third party rights depend on the size of the defendant enterprise, its possibilities to investigate the features of the goods and on its knowledge of the circumstances establishing an infringement Department stores selling a large variety of goods may not have to conduct searches but could rely on manufacturers searches (District Court of Düsseldorf Strickwarenhandel ) problem: 45 no. 2 s. 2 TRIPS? 124

Limitation ( 141 (1) Patent Act, 195, 199 Civil Code) 3-year period starting at the end of the year in which the claimant learned or ought to have learned about the infringement 10-year period of origination of the claim 30-year period of the infringement whatever is shortest 125

Calculation of Damages Claimant may finally elect loss of profit profit realized by the infringer marketable license 126

Loss of Profit Comparing assets with and without the infringement What is the amount of the loss caused by the infringement? Claimant must prove that he (or a licensee) would have had the business had the infringer not used the infringing technology. decline in business after infringer stepped in no other reasons for decline Claimant must provide at least a well-substantiated estimate ( 287 Code of Civil Procedure) 127

Profits Realized by the Infringer Profits generated by the infringement exclusive of any further benefits derived from the rise in working capital (no evolving profits) No overhead deduction Supreme Court decision only relating to design models Judges want to find distinction to correct the decision for patent cases, argument: design model has often bigger influence on total profit than patent correcting element shall possibly be found elsewhere Exclusive of: rise in profits relating to advertising, enhanced distribution channels, goodwill of the infringer Open: Reclaim of costs saved by the use of patented technology 128

Marketable License Claimant is to be put in a position not worse than the position claimant would have been in had the infringer asked for a license What would have the parties agreed had they foreseen the course of business? Interest: prime lending rate plus 3.5% starting February 1 of the year following the infringement Increase / decrease: plus loss of goodwill of the claimant, no inspection of books, possibility to attack the validity of the patent minus uncertainty of infringer s investment, risk of exposure to further damages, use of other patents / IP rights 129

Procedural Law No discovery, no disclosure No saisie, no Anton Piller order changing now No attack on a granted patent in infringement proceedings stay in case the Patent Office overlooked something National nullity proceeding only after opposition decision or end of term to oppose Routine decisions within one year Preliminary injunctions within hours / several weeks Multi-step procedure for damages: Obtain a decision on the infringement Enforce claims concerning information and rendering of account Litigate on affirmation in lieu of oath if necessary Litigate the amount of damages And finally: enforcement of damages against all infringers 130

Although this seminar presentation may provide information concerning potential legal issues, it is not a substitute for legal advice from qualified counsel. The presentation is not created or designed to address the unique facts or circumstances that may arise in any specific instance, and you should not and are not authorized to rely on this content as a source of legal advice and this seminar material does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins. 242