Royalties Patents

News & Analysis as of

IP Newsflash - May 2015 #4

DISTRICT COURT CASES - Eastern District of Virginia Grants Summary Judgment of Noninfringement to Adobe - On May 7, 2015, Judge Brinkema of the United States district court for the Eastern District of Virginia...more

Cost of Design Changes Need to be Factored to Avoid IP Infringements

Design changes can be costly, particularly when the latter stages of technology maturity and product incorporation have occurred. Estimates have put the cost of design changes at 100X the value of non-recurring engineering...more

Lost Profits Are Hard to Come By - Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. et al. v. NuVasive, Inc.

Addressing the issue of convoyed and related sales, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, even while affirming the district court with respect to its invalidity and infringement findings, remanded the case for a...more

Federal Circuit Review | April 2015

No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more

ITC Section 337 Update - April 2015

Motorola’s Appeal To Ninth Circuit Of A Jury Determination That Motorola Breached Its FRAND Obligation – In a case involving the first time a federal district court judge determined a FRAND royalty rate for standard essential...more

DOJ’s Endorsement of IEEE Patent Policy Takes Center Stage at IP Antitrust Conference

On April 14 in Washington, DC, Global Competition Review hosted its Second Annual IP & Antitrust USA conference. The conference covered various hot topics being closely followed by IP antitrust practitioners, including (1)...more

AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit rendered a decision on damages in what may be the last of a long-running series of ANDA cases involving AstraZeneca's Prilosec® (omeprazole) franchise. As set forth in the opinion,...more

Federal Circuit Addresses Damages in the Hatch-Waxman Context

On April 7, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., No. 2014-1221, affirming an award of a reasonable royalty of 50% in a case arising from the...more

Kimble and Post-Expiration Royalties: The Next Big Thing, or Much Ado About Nothing?

Today, as we previewed here, the US Supreme Court analyzed the question of whether patent holders should be allowed to contract for royalty payments that continue to accrue after the expiration of the subject patent. While...more

Expert Is Not Permitted to Testify to Alternate Hypothetical Negotiation Dates Where No Hypothetical Negotiation Was Conducted for...

After the parties submitted expert reports in this patent infringement action, Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's damage expert's expected testimony and demonstratives. Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's evidence because it...more

Locating Time Frames for the Hypothetical Negotiation

In determining a reasonable royalty for patent infringement damages, district courts often use the hypothetical negotiation analysis: that is, what is the royalty rate that the patent owner and the infringer would have agreed...more

Will the European Court of Justice Conclude that Antitrust Law Prohibits Royalties for Invalid Patents?

The European Court of Justice recently announced that it will issue a decision in Genentech Inc. v. Hoechst GmbH, in response to a request from the Paris Court of Appeals for clarification on whether European antitrust law...more

Patent Exhaustion Update: The Federal Circuit Allows Royalties From Different Entities In Supply Chain

Patent exhaustion, or "the first sale doctrine," requires that the initial authorized sale of a patented item by a patent owner or licensee, terminates their ability to subsequently use their patent rights against that item....more

Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team – Evidence of Actual Profits Does Not Hold Water in Reasonable Royalty Analysis

The Federal Circuit, in Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team, 774 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2014), recently provided further guidance on the traditional method for assessing the market value of a patent: the hypothetical...more

In SEP Assertion Cases, Apportionment Trumps Entire Market Rule - Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys. Inc., et al.

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys. Inc., et al. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed a spectrum of issues surrounding industry standards for electronic devices that wirelessly access the internet,...more

Open Text v. Box: District Court Holds That Box Can Present Damages in the Form of a Fully Paid-Up Lump Sum Payment Even Though...

As the Open Text v. Box patent case gets closer to trial, Open Text sought to preclude Box from asking the jury to award damages in the form of a fully paid-up lump sum that would cover the life of the patents-in-suit. Open...more

Energy Management Patent Triggers a Covered Business Method Review

Faced with a patent threat, renewable energy and climate change companies may have a new defense option – a Covered Business Method (CBM) proceeding. Ushered in less than 2 years ago as part of comprehensive patent reform...more

The Year Ahead in Patent Law - 2015

With the advent of the America Invents Act (AIA), public perception of frivolous patent litigation, frequently surrounding cases filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs), has received increasing legislative attention. Although...more

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, FRAND World

Early Determinations of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory License Payments Have Been Anything but Consistent - When an invention claimed in a patent is essential to complying with a technical operating standard...more

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc. Guidance on Determining Damages for Standard Essential Patents

Patents claiming inventions which must be used to comply with certain technical standards (for example, the Wi-Fi standard or standards for 3G) are referred to as standards-essential patents or “SEPs”. There has,...more

IP Newsletter - January 2015

In This Issue: - Castle Defense: Federal Circuit Reinforces Patent Damages Gate in VirnetX - Standards Patent Licensing: Always Apportionment, Sometimes Stacking - Supreme Court to Consider Good-Faith...more

Daubert Challenge to Damage Expert Denied Where Contested Matters Were for Cross-Examination and Not Proper for Exclusion

In this patent infringement action, Apple challenged the opinions of the plaintiff's damage expert on several bases, including the determination of a royalty rate based on the price of third-party applications....more

Judge Hellerstein rules on a series of motions related to infringement contentions, motions to compel documents and responses to...

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-03777-AKH - Judge Hellerstein resolved a number of discovery-related motions. First he found that defendants’ motion to strike...more

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

56 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×