Law Commons^™

Fault Lines In Trademark Default Judgments, David S. Welkowitz

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Selecting An Appropriate Damages Expert In A Patent Case; An Examination Of The Current Status Of Daubert, Michael H. King, Steven M. Evans

Akron Law Review

The determination of damages is a critical part of any patent case. As a plaintiff, maximizing awarded damages, whether financial or injunctive, is the ultimate objective of the patent case. As a defendant, minimizing or preventing any awarded damages is the ultimate objective.

Multimillion dollar verdicts in patent cases are now the norm and hundred plus million dollar verdicts are becoming more frequent. A lawyer who fails to devote sufficient time to this critical component of a case does the client a disservice.

There are generally two types of damages in patent cases: lost profits and a reasonable royalty. A …

A Path Toward An Increased Role For The United States In Patent Infringement Litigation, Caroline M. Turner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

A number of major statutory schemes implicate federal interests but do not provide for explicit authority for the United States to bring lawsuits for damages or to obtain injunctive relief. The patent statutes provide that the patentee may sue in the case of infringement, and court decisions have extended that right to certain licensees. Accordingly, the United States has participated in cases in which it is not a co-patentee or licensee only as an amicus. Yet the government arguably has an interest in intervening in or instituting, as a co-plaintiff, infringement cases involving certain patents. Recent scholarship has renewed attention …

A Unified Framework For Rand And Other Reasonable Royalties, Richard J. Gilbert, Jorge L. Contreras

Richard J Gilbert

The framework for calculating “reasonable royalty” patent damages has evolved over the years to a point at which, today, it is viewed by many commentators as potentially misleading and untethered from its original purpose. We offer a proposal to modify the framework for determining reasonable patent royalties that is based on recent scholarly and judicial analyses of standards-essential patents that are subject to commitments to license on terms that are reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND).

Many standard setting organizations require owners of patents that are essential to a standard to license those patents on RAND terms, but typically offer little specific …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Neither Party: Halo Elecs. Inc. V. Pulse Elecs. Inc. And Stryker Corp. V. Zimmer, Inc., Christopher B. Seaman, Jason Rantanen

Scholarly Articles

This amicus brief was filed on behalf of several intellectual property law professors in Halo v. Pulse and Stryker v. Zimmer regarding the appropriate standard for enhancing (increasing) damages under section 284 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 284. It advances three primary arguments. First, it asserts that in light of the history of the statutory text and judicial precedent, willful infringement is the appropriate standard (and thus the only valid basis) for awarding enhanced damages under § 284. Second, it contends that Federal Circuit’s two-part, objective/subjective test for determining willfulness articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, …

Ending Unreasonable Royalties: Why Nominal Damages Are Adequate To Compensate Patent Assertion Entities For Infringement, Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

Frand V. Compulsory Licensing: The Lesser Of The Two Evils, Srividhya Ragavan

Srividhya Ragavan

No abstract provided.