Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Intellectual property (2)
- Litigation (2)
- 17 U.S.C. §505 (1)
- Attorney's fees (1)
- Bad faith (1)
-
- Bifurcation (1)
- CJEU (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Copyright Act (1)
- Copyright infringement (1)
- Court of Justice of the European Union (1)
- Cross-border litigation (1)
- ECJ (1)
- European Union (1)
- Fee shifting (1)
- Frivolous claim (1)
- GAT v. LuK (1)
- Injunctions (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons (1)
- Patent (1)
- Patent Infringement (1)
- Patent Law (1)
- Patents (1)
- Private international law (1)
- Rule 11 (1)
- Sanctions (1)
- Section 1927 (1)
- Solvay (1)
- Unified patent court (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
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
Scholarly Works
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 …
Gat, Solvay, And The Centralization Of Patent Litigation In Europe, Marketa Trimble
Gat, Solvay, And The Centralization Of Patent Litigation In Europe, Marketa Trimble
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Joint Defense Or Research Joint Venture? Reassessing The Patent-Challenge-Bloc's Antitrust Status, Joseph S. Miller
Joint Defense Or Research Joint Venture? Reassessing The Patent-Challenge-Bloc's Antitrust Status, Joseph S. Miller
Scholarly Works
A patent challenger who defeats a patent wins spoils that it must share with the world, including all its competitors. This forced sharing undercuts an alleged infringer's incentive to stay in the fight to the finish - especially if the patent owner offers an attractive settlement. Too many settlements, and too few definitive patent challenges, are the result. I have argued previously that a litigation-stage bounty would help correct this tilt against patent challenges, for it would provide cash prizes to successful patent challengers that they alone would enjoy. Even the best-designed bounty, however, would likely fail to encourage patent …
Cross-Border Injunctions In U.S. Patent Cases And Their Enforcement Abroad, Marketa Trimble
Cross-Border Injunctions In U.S. Patent Cases And Their Enforcement Abroad, Marketa Trimble
Scholarly Works
In surveying recent literature on difficulties with cross-border injunctions in patent cases, one may conclude that the problem appears to be limited to the phenomenon of pan-European injunctions granted by some courts in Europe in cases concerning infringements of foreign patents. However, even in cases concerning domestic patents, injunctions reaching beyond national borders can be issued; the empirical evidence presented in the paper demonstrates a variety of such instances in U.S. patent cases. Certainly the existence of such injunctions in the U.S. raises concerns about their enforceability in other countries, particularly when they are issued against a foreign entity that …