Patent Royalties

News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Corner: Q4 2014

KIMBLE V. MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC. Patent Licensing - Cert. Pending - Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects...more

Will the Supreme Court Remove Brulotte’s Shadow Over Patent Licensing?

Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the collection of royalties after a patent’s expiration constitutes per se patent misuse. Although criticized by scholars, antitrust agencies, and the...more

Supreme Court 2014 Patent Preview

On average, the U.S. Supreme Court historically hears fewer than one patent case each term. For example, in the 14 years between 1982 and 1995, the Court decided only five patent cases. In the seven years between 1995 and...more

Supreme Court to Decide Whether License Agreements May Require Payment of Royalties After Patent Expiration

The U.S. Supreme Court Friday agreed to revisit a longstanding precedent that bars patent owners from collecting royalties after their patents have expired, even if those post-expiration payments represent compensation for...more

Antitrust and Competition Newsletter - December 2014 (Global)

For this month’s Top Stories, we are republishing two very recent Orrick Client Alerts that address an important U.S. appellate decision regarding the extraterritorial application of U.S. antitrust laws and the first U.S....more

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Whether Post-Patent Term Royalty Schemes Lawful

On Friday, December 12, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 13-720, opening the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964),...more

Federal Circuit Provides Important Guidance in RAND Disputes

On Dec. 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a much-anticipated opinion in Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, -1633 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014). The panel—consisting of Judges Kathleen O'Malley,...more

Actual Negotiations Trump 40-Year Georgia-Pacific Test to Determine Type of Patent Licensing Royalties

The Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp. - Addressing a lower court’s reasonable royalty determination that chose not to rely on the Georgia Pacific factors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently...more

Federal Circuit Review | October 2014

Inequitable Conduct Ruling Upheld - In AMERICAN CALCAR, INC. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., Appeal No. 2013-1061, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct. Calcar asserted patents related to...more

License Definition Trumps Need for Actual Infringement Finding

Cellport Systems, Inc. v. Peiker Acustic GMBH & Co. KG - In a case addressing whether royalties are due under a patent licensing agreement even if the products are not covered by the patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals...more

Edwards and Medtronic to Settle All Patent Litigation; Medtronic to Make over $1 Billion in Payments

According to a press release, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic have agreed to settle all outstanding patent litigation between the companies, including cases related to transcatheter heart valves. The press release noted...more

Forward-Publishing Your Patents? Best and Worst Case Scenarios...

Patents are a tool to discourage inventors to keep trade secrets, by trading public disclosure for a limited monopoly. Forward-publishing an application is a deliberate embrace of this philosophy, eliminating even the...more

Top 5 Ediscovery Case Summaries – July 2013: California - Spoliation Sanctions Levied Against Damages Awarded in Rambus Case

SK Hynix Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2013 WL 1915865 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2013). In this complex set of patent-infringement cases, the plaintiffs sought spoliation sanctions against the defendant—who prevailed in the underlying...more

W.L. Gore’s Impact on Pending Maryland Cases and Audits

In a case decided late last month, Comptroller of the Treasury v. Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Future Value, Inc., Nos. 1696 and 1697 (January 24, 2013), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that patent royalties...more

14 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1