Trademark and Patent Actions

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

Intellectual Property Enforcement Ali S. Razai. OCPA Annual Educational Conference September 15, 2018

States Still Fighting Bad-Faith Patent Infringement Claims

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

U.S. Supreme Court Changes Standards for Attorney Fee Awards in Patent Cases by David R. Todd

Terms and Conditions of Use Your use of this website and its content constitutes your agreement to be bound by these terms and conditions of use.

The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases

Supreme Court of the United States OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOMESTIC OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARKS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. No. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case 1:17-cv JCH-JHR Document 17 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EFFECTIVELY RECOVERING ATTORNEY S FEES

The 100-Day Program at the ITC

Case 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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

Case 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

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

3 James A. McDaniel (Bar No ) 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GIBSON LOWRY BURRIS LLP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :

Trademark Valuation through Damages in the United States Naresh Kilaru

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NO. COMPLAINT. Rothschild LLP, and hereby files the following Complaint against Defendants, J&J Corvette

Recent Developments in IP Enforcement in Korea

Overview on Damages Available in Copyright and Trademark Disputes in the U.S. by Ralph H. Cathcart 1 COPYRIGHT DAMAGES

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC ( Green Pet Shop or. Plaintiff ), by and through its attorneys, THE RANDO LAW FIRM P.C.

The Five (or More) Forums for Your Trademark Dispute, and How to Choose the Right One (Hint: Don t Choose the ITC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Third Edition

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff Case No.: 1:17-cv-6236 COMPLAINT

Supreme Court Unanimously Overturns Federal Circuit Standards For Shifting Of Attorneys Fees In Patent Cases: What Are the New Rules Of The Road?

Patent Resources Group Federal Circuit Law Course Syllabus

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

NC General Statutes - Chapter 66 Article 29 1

IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Second Edition

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Protect Trade Secrets and Enforce Non-Competes:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Protecting Privileged Communications of In-house Counsel, Post-Halo

Chapter XIX EQUITY CONDENSED OUTLINE

Case 1:18-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

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

States Attempt to Prohibit Bad-Faith Patent Infringement Claims

Economic Damages in IP Litigation

Patent Damages in China: Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones. Jill (Yijun) Ge April 20, 2017

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

Case 2:18-cv JAD-CWH Document 1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 17

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

Trademark Laws: New York

Case 2:13-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 16

April 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea:

REVISED APRIL 26, 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No No TMI INC, Plaintiff-Appellee

Patent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:14-cv AA Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

The plaintiff, the Gameologist Group, LLC ( Gameologist or. the plaintiff ), brought this action against the defendants,

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

106TH CONGRESS Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMMUNICATIONS OMNIBUS REFORM ACT OF 1999

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Judge:

Case 1:13-cv CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2013 Page 1 of 17

Case 1:18-cv NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 1

Korean Intellectual Property Office

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Case No. 3:13-cv N

Case 1:12-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

The Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice

Where Should I File My Lawsuit in California? bc-llp.com 1

Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3

Case 1:11-cv RMC Document 1 Filed 08/20/10 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

QUICKPOLE.CA TERMS OF SERVICE. Last Modified On: July 12 th, 2018

Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. Civil Action No. Defendant. JURY DEMANDED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Opposing Post-Judgment Fee. Discrimination Cases*

ANNEX VII REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 25 PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

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

WHITE BLACKBIRDS: DEFINING THE EXCEPTIONAL CYBERSQUATTER

RECOVERING THE PROCEEDS OF FRAUD

Attorneys for Plaintiffs LARRY KING ENTERPRISES, INC. and ORA MEDIA LLC

CHAPTER 1. DISCLOSING EXPERT WITNESSES UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES: AN OVERVIEW

SCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v.

c) Parties: Collectively, the parties to this Agreement (the Company and You) will be referred to as Parties.

Case 2:18-cv JTM-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V.,

Transcription:

PBI Electronic Publication # EP-3613 Trademark and Patent Actions M. Kelly Tillery, Esq. Pepper Hamilton LLP Philadelphia A chapter from Obtaining (or Avoiding) Enhanced Damages and Fees in Copyright, Trademark, Trade Secret and Patent Actions Pub. No. 5421, published November 2008 To purchase this book: See the PBI Online Bookstore at www.pbi.org Email info@pbi.org, or Call 1-800-932-4637 2009 Pennsylvania Bar Institute. All rights reserved. This file is licensed only to the person downloading this file from PBI s website, for printing and for saving to his or her personal computer. No further use is permitted. This file may not be shared electronically with any other person without the express written permission of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The Pennsylvania Bar Institute does not render any legal, accounting, or other professional services. The Institute s programs and publications are designed solely to help attorneys maintain their professional competence. In dealing with specific legal matters, the attorney using PBI publications or orally conveyed information should also research original sources of authority.

Table of Contents Obtaining (or Avoiding) Enhanced Damages and Fees in Copyright, Trademark, Trade Secret and Patent Actions -- TRADEMARK AND PATENT ACTIONS Authored and Submitted by: M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia PART ONE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN TRADEMARK CASES...79 I. THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE...79 A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY THE LANHAM ACT...79 B. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 1117(a) NARROWLY DEFINES EXCEPTIONAL CASE...80 C. THE THIRD CIRCUIT REQUIRES THAT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BE EXAMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CASE IS EXCEPTIONAL...81 D. A DISTRICT COURT MUST ENGAGE IN A MULTI-STEP PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ATTORNEYS FEE AWARD IS APPROPRIATE...82 E. THE PREVAILING PARTY DETERMINATION...84 F. THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS FOR AN ATTORNEYS FEE CLAIM...84 G. WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE AND WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND NOT TO CONSTITUTE CULPABLE CONDUCT...86 H. A LAPP FACTOR INTENT FINDING IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A 1117(a) FINDING OF KNOWING/DELIBERATE/WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT...91 I. GOOD FAITH USES AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL MAY MAKE CASE UNEXCEPTIONAL...93 J. WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE AND WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND NOT TO CONSTITUTE LITIGATION MISCONDUCT?...93 K. THE PREVAILING PARTY S OWN LITIGATION MISCONDUCT MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO NEGATE ANY CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS FEES...96 L. EVEN IF A COURT FINDS CULPABLE CONDUCT, THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF EXCEPTIONAL CASE 97 II. EVEN IF A COURT FINDS CULPABLE CONDUCT AND EXCEPTIONAL CASE, AN AWARD OF ALL, OR EVEN MOST ATTORNEYS FEES MAY BE UNFAIR AND INAPPROPRIATE...98 A. THE COURT MUST STILL THEN BALANCE FACTS IN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES...99 III. CONCLUSION...99 PART TWO INCREASED/ENHANCED DAMAGES IN TRADEMARK CASES...100 vi

I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY ACTUAL DAMAGES...100 A. SECTION 35(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT PROVIDES:...100 II. ACTUAL DAMAGES...100 A. PURPOSE: TO COMPENSATE INJURED PLAINTIFF...100 B. DOES NOT REQUIRE WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT...100 C. ACTUAL DAMAGES INCLUDE:...100 D. CANNOT BE BASED ON CONJECTURE/SPECULATION...101 E. REQUIRES PROOF OF ACTUAL CONFUSION...101 F. PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST...101 G. PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT AVAILABLE...101 III. ENHANCED ACTUAL DAMAGES...101 A. LIMITS...101 B. APPEAL...102 IV. STATUTORY AUTHORITY DEFENDANT S PROFITS...102 A. SECTION 35(A) OF THE LANHAM ACT ALSO INCLUDES A PROVISION FOR THE INCREASE OR DECREASE OF ANY AWARD OF DEFENDANT S PROFITS, THOUGH DIFFERENT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED FOR POTENTIAL INCREASE (ONLY) OF AN AWARD OF PLAINTIFF S ACTUAL DAMAGES:...102 V. DEFENDANT S PROFITS ACCOUNTING AND DISGORGEMENT...102 A. REQUIRES FINDING OF WILLFUL OR BAD FAITH INFRINGEMENT IN MOST CIRCUITS (UNLIKE WITH ACTUAL DAMAGES)...102 B. DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF ACTUAL CONFUSION (UNLIKE WITH ACTUAL DAMAGES IN MOST CIRCUITS)...102 VI. INCREASE/DECREASE IN AWARD OF DEFENDANT S PROFITS...102 A. COURT DISCRETION IS WIDE...102 B. PURPOSE OF INCREASE...103 C. PLAINTIFF CANNOT RECOVER ITS LOST PROFITS (ACTUAL DAMAGES) AND DEFENDANT S PROFITS...103 D. FACTORS THAT COURTS CONSIDER...103 E. LIMITS ON COURT POWER...103 VII. ANTI-COUNTERFEITING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT COUNTERFEITING CASE 15 U.S.C. 1117(c)...103 A. STATUTORY DAMAGES...103 VIII. ANTI-CYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT CYBERSQUATTING 15 U.S.C. 1117(d)...104 A. STATUTORY DAMAGES...104 vii

IX. PRACTICE POINTERS...104 A. FORUM SELECTION...104 B. ENHANCED AWARDS RARE...104 PART THREE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN PATENT CASES...105 I. THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE...105 A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY THE PATENT ACT...105 B. PATENT LITIGATION IS EXPENSIVE...105 C. INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT...105 D. PURPOSE OF ATTORNEYS FEE AWARD TO PREVENT A GROSS INJUSTICE 106 E. DISTRICT COURT HAS WIDE DISCRETION...106 F. DISTRICT COURT MUST ENGAGE IN A MULTI-STEP PROCESS...107 G. BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED...108 H. FACTORS COURTS CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATION FEE CLAIM AGAINST ALLEGED INFRINGER...108 I. FACTORS COURTS CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING FEE CLAIM AGAINST PATENTEE...108 J. WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE AND NOT TO BE INEQUITABLE CONDUCT.108 K. WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE AND NOT TO BE BAD FAITH AND VEXATIOUS LITIGATION...109 L. LODESTAR ADJUSTMENT OF FEE AWARD...113 M. APPEAL STANDARD OF REVIEW...113 N. COSTS AND LITIGATION EXPENSE...113 O. BLAMING LAWYERS AND/OR CLIENTS...113 P. PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON FEE AWARD...114 Q. LAGNIAPPE...114 PART FOUR INCREASED/TREBLED DAMAGES IN PATENT CASES...115 A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY THE PATENT ACT...115 B. BASES FOR INCREASED DAMAGES...115 C. FACTORS COURTS EXAMINE...115 D. DETERMINING BAD FAITH - THE THREE BOTT FACTORS...116 E. DUTY OF DUE CARE...116 F. RELIANCE ON OPINION OF COMPETENT U.S. PATENT COUNSEL...116 G. SUBSTANTIAL GOOD FAITH DEFENSE OF NO INFRINGEMENT AND/OR INVALIDITY...116 H. WHEN COPYING IS ACTUALLY DESIGN AROUND...117 I. BURDEN OF PROOF...117 J. APPEAL STANDARD OF REVIEW...117 K. INCREASE DAMAGES BY HOW MUCH? WHY? ON WHAT BASIS?...117 viii

L. POWER OF COURT TO INCREASE IS LIMITED TO ACTUAL DAMAGES...117 M. ROLE OF JURY4612...117 Contact Information...118 ix