Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- 17 U.S.C. §505 (1)
- 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (1)
- American Invents Act (1)
- Attorney's fees (1)
- Bad faith (1)
-
- Civil procedure (1)
- Continuous and permanent presence (1)
- Copyright Act (1)
- Copyright infringement (1)
- Damages (1)
- Eastern District of Texas (1)
- Fee shifting (1)
- Ford Global Technologies (1)
- Forum shopping (1)
- Frivolous claim (1)
- Halo v. Pulse (1)
- In re Cordis (1)
- In re Cray (1)
- Intellectual Property (1)
- Intellectual property (1)
- Interlocutory Appeals (1)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons (1)
- Law Review (1)
- Litigation weapon (1)
- Non-practicing entities (1)
- PTAB (1)
- PTO (1)
- Patent Damages (1)
- Patent infringement (1)
- Patent trolls (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed
Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed
Georgia State University Law Review
Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …
Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that other factors …
Solving The Riddle! Bridging The Gap In The Federal Circuit’S Definition Of “Regular And Established Place Of Business” To Prevent Patent Trolls From Forum Shopping, Michael A. Morales
Solving The Riddle! Bridging The Gap In The Federal Circuit’S Definition Of “Regular And Established Place Of Business” To Prevent Patent Trolls From Forum Shopping, Michael A. Morales
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
2017 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Laura C. Whitworth
2017 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Laura C. Whitworth
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.