|
|
|
 |
|
|
Our newsletter, Patent Happenings, presents concise summaries of important developments in U.S. patent law. We list below the topics addressed in a given issue. To see the full issue of the newsletter click on the month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- When multiple plaintiffs/relators sue for the same act of patent false marking
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
- Post Seagate cases show that the failure to obtain an opinion of counsel still weighs heavily in determining whether to enhance damages
- Using royalty rates in licenses given to settle infringement actions as evidence of a royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation
- Accused infringer’s failure to challenge scope of a permanent injunction when appealing a final judgment precluded later challenge to the injunction’s scope when defending against a charge of contempt
- Federal Circuit overrules PTO’s methodology of calculating patent term adjustments where Period A delays “overlap” Period B delays
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
- Federal Circuit holds that the penalty for false marking under § 292 must be assessed on a per article basis with the district court setting the amount of the penalty anywhere from a fraction of a penny to a maximum of $500 per article falsely marked
- E.D. Texas applies on-going royalty to redesigned product since it was not more than colorably different from original adjudicated infringing product
- Lessons to note from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in i4i on the need for JMOL motions and opinions of counsel
- Mandamus granted to transfer infringement action to forum where accused product was developed since original forum had no “relevant factual connection” to the infringement action
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
