Law Commons^™

Saliency, Anchors & Frames: A Multicomponent Damages Experiment, Bernard Chao

Michigan Technology Law Review

Modern technology products contain thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of different features. Nonetheless, when electronics manufacturers are sued for patent infringement, these suits typically accuse only one feature, or in more complex suits, a handful of features, of actual patent infringement. But damages verdicts often do not reflect the relatively small contribution an individual patent makes to an infringing product. One study observed that verdicts in these types of cases average 9.98% of the price of the entire product. While both courts and commentators have blamed the law of patent damages, the role cognitive biases play in these outsized damages …

Design Patent Damages: A Critique Of The Government’S Proposed 4-Factor Test For Determining The “Article Of Manufacture”, Perry J. Saidman

IP Theory

The Supreme Court in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc. wrestled with the question of determining the meaning of “article of manufacture” in 35 U.S.C. § 289 when it comes to calculating the total profit of the infringer that is awarded to the patentee.

In its Petition for Certiorari, Samsung raised the novel theory that the article of manufacture could be less than the entire product sold by the infringer. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the following issue, as framed in Samsung’s Petition:

Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an …

Snapshot Of Trade Secret Developments, Elizabeth A. Rowe

UF Law Faculty Publications

As we enter the second year post enactment of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, this Paper presents a snapshot of developments to assess whether there appear to be any significant doctrinal changes afoot in trade secret litigation, both civil and criminal, during the past year. I take a qualitative look at some of the substantive rulings from 2017 to date. My assessment based on this limited sampling is that there do not appear to be any dramatic changes to the doctrinal development of the law to date.

The paper highlights some noteworthy civil cases from select federal and state …

Argh, No More Pirating America’S Booty: Improving Copyright Protections For American Creators In China, Johnathan Ling

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

The advent of the internet brought about revolutionary changes and challenges to the world. Internet piracy is one area which is presenting new challenges, particularly to copyright holders such as artists, filmmakers, and creators. China has been a hotbed of piracy and is home to the second highest number of file sharing infringers in the world. China has made strides to improve its copyright protection, such as implementing a copyright law in 1990, as well as joining the World Trade Organization and signing on to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which specifies minimum levels of intellectual …

Grading Patent Remedies: Dependent Claims And Relative Infringement, Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

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, …

How Should Damages Be Calculated For Design Patent Infringement?, Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Casting Aspersions In Patent Trials, Daniel Harris Brean, Bryan P. Clark

Daniel Harris Brean

Show Me The Money: Determining A Celebrity’S Fair Market Value In A Right Of Publicity Action, Cody Reaves

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As the power of celebrity continues to grow in the age of social media, so too does the price of using a celebrity’s name and likeness to promote a product. With the newfound ease of using Twitter, Facebook, and even print media to use a celebrity’s identity in conjunction with a product or company, right of publicity concerns arise. When a company uses a celebrity’s name and likeness without the celebrity’s authorization to market or sell a product, companies open themselves up to right of publicity suits. Many of these cases settle out of court. But when these cases do …

Buying Monopoly: Antitrust Limits On Damages For Externally Acquired Patents, Erik N. Hovenkamp, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The “monopoly” authorized by the Patent Act refers to the exclusionary power of individual patents. That is not the same thing as the acquisition of individual patent rights into portfolios that dominate a market, something that the Patent Act never justifies and that the antitrust laws rightfully prohibit.

Most patent assignments are procompetitive and serve to promote the efficient commercialization of patented inventions. However, patent acquisitions may also be used to combine substitute patents from external patentees, giving the acquirer an unearned monopoly position in the relevant technology market. A producer requires only one of the substitutes, but by acquiring …

Contents

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Multiple Intellectual Property Damage Complications As In Apple V Samsung? Try Using Excel, W. Lesser

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

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.

Food For Thought: Genetically Modified Seeds As De Facto Standard Essential Patents, Benjamin M. Cole, Brent J. Horton, Ryan G. Vacca

Akron Law Faculty Publications

For several years, courts have been improperly calculating damages in cases involving the unlicensed use of genetically-modified (GM) seed technology. In particular, when courts determine patent damages based on the hypothetical negotiation method, they err in exaggerating these damages to a point where no rational negotiator would agree. In response, we propose a limited affirmative defense of an implied license due to the patent’s status as a de facto standard essential patent. To be classified as a de facto standard essential patent, the farmer must prove three elements that reflect the peculiarities of GM seeds used in farming: (1) dominance, …

Food For Thought: Genetically Modified Seeds As De Facto Standard Essential Patents, Benjamin M. Cole, Brent J. Horton, Ryan G. Vacca

Ryan G. Vacca

For several years, courts have been improperly calculating damages in cases involving the unlicensed use of genetically-modified (GM) seed technology. In particular, when courts determine patent damages based on the hypothetical negotiation method, they err in exaggerating these damages to a point where no rational negotiator would agree. In response, we propose a limited affirmative defense of an implied license due to the patent’s status as a de facto standard essential patent. To be classified as a de facto standard essential patent, the farmer must prove three elements that reflect the peculiarities of GM seeds used in farming: (1) dominance, …

Food For Thought: Genetically Modified Seeds As De Facto Standard Essential Patents, Benjamin M. Cole, Brent J. Horton, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

For several years, courts have been improperly calculating damages in cases involving the unlicensed use of genetically-modified (GM) seed technology. In particular, when courts determine patent damages based on the hypothetical negotiation method, they err in exaggerating these damages to a point where no rational negotiator would agree. In response, we propose a limited affirmative defense of an implied license due to the patent’s status as a de facto standard essential patent. To be classified as a de facto standard essential patent, the farmer must prove three elements that reflect the peculiarities of GM seeds used in farming: (1) dominance, …

Will The “Nexus” Requirement Of Apple V. Samsung Preclude Injunctive Relief In The Majority Of Patent Cases?: Echoes Of The Entire Market Value Rule, Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

How Much Is Really At Stake?: Damages Statutes Collide In Multiple-Ip Litigation, Vanessa L. Otero

Vanessa L Otero

The statutes that govern damages for utility patents, design patents, and trade dress protection differ in ways that create potential conflicts when products infringe all three types of intellectual property. The purpose of this article is threefold: to provide an overview of current IP damages law, to present a case study, through an Apple v. Samsung case, on the unique problems that arise because of these laws, and to make a recommendation on how to avoid IP damages problems in future litigation.

Harm To Competition Or Innovation, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

This book of CASES AND MATERIALS ON INNOVATION AND COMPETITION POLICY is intended for educational use. The book is free for all to use subject to an open source license agreement. It differs from IP/antitrust casebooks in that it considers numerous sources of competition policy in addition to antitrust, including those that emanate from the intellectual property laws themselves, and also related issues such as the relationship between market structure and innovation, the competitive consequences of regulatory rules governing technology competition such as net neutrality and interconnection, misuse, the first sale doctrine, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Chapters …

Formalism And Pragmatism In The Analysis Of Damages For Indirect Patent Infringement, Dmitry Karshtedt

Dmitry Karshtedt

No abstract provided.

Copyright And The Vagueness Doctrine, Bradley E. Abruzzi

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Constitution's void-for-vagueness doctrine is itself vaguely stated. The doctrine does little to describe at what point vague laws-other than those that are entirely standardless-become unconstitutionally vague. Rather than explore this territory, the Supreme Court has identified three collateral factors that affect its inclination to invalidate a law for vagueness: (1) whether the law burdens the exercise of constitutional rights, (2) whether the law is punitive in nature, and (3) whether the law overlays a defendant-protective scienter requirement. Measured against these factors, copyright law does not meet the vagueness doctrine's minimum requirement of fair notice to the public. Copyright, by …

Improving Patent Notice And Remedies: A Critique Of The Ftc's 2011 Report, Alan Devlin

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

2011 was an eventful year for those interested in patent law. In March, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") released a report that urges the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") and courts to remedy perceived inadequacies underlying the U.S. patent system. The FTC observes that people of skill in the art routinely encounter difficulty in determining the meaning, and hence exclusive scope, of a patent's claims. Not only does this failure of notice stymie the efficient dispersion of technology throughout the economy, the FTC argues, but the judicial process can aggravate the problem by granting inappropriate remedies in patent-infringement cases. Then, …

Patent Attorney Malpractice: Case-Within-A-Case-Within-A-Case, Samuel Oddi

Akron Law Faculty Publications

As literary devices, a “story-within-a story” and a “play-within-a-play” have a long lineage. Shakespeare seems to have been particularly fond of these devices. The legal analog may be seen as the “case-within-a-case” (“trial-within-a-trial,” “suit-within-a-suit”) arising in legal malpractice cases. The case-within-a-case terminology seems to be the most commonly used and hence will be used herein. While it is clear that the “case” is the malpractice case, it is not so clear what the “case-within-” is, which is usually referred to as the “underlying case.” Often, it seems to be presumed that the underlying case is limited to litigation, which would …

Patent Attorney Malpractice: Case-Within-A-Case-Within-A-Case, Samuel Oddi

Samuel Oddi

As literary devices, a “story-within-a story” and a “play-within-a-play” have a long lineage. Shakespeare seems to have been particularly fond of these devices. The legal analog may be seen as the “case-within-a-case” (“trial-within-a-trial,” “suit-within-a-suit”) arising in legal malpractice cases. The case-within-a-case terminology seems to be the most commonly used and hence will be used herein. While it is clear that the “case” is the malpractice case, it is not so clear what the “case-within-” is, which is usually referred to as the “underlying case.” Often, it seems to be presumed that the underlying case is limited to litigation, which would …