Royalties Patents

News & Analysis as of

“Raging Bull” and the Patent Act: Laches Still Available in Patent Cases - SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit convened an en banc panel to examine the Supreme Court’s “Raging Bull” decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. in the context of deciding whether laches remains a...more

Microsoft And Google Resolve FRAND And Other Patent Disputes

Microsoft and Google announced that they have settled their global patent disputes, including the litigation underlying the FRAND dispute that gave rise to Judge Robart’s first-of-its-kind decision on determining a FRAND...more

Drafting Intellectual Property Agreements: Best Practices From a Litigator’s Perspective

As intellectual property licensing continues to grow more prevalent, legal practitioners and business personnel are being asked to craft and negotiate agreements that can significantly impact a business’s ability to compete...more

NexusCard Seeks Wonderland in Georgia After Alice Motion in Texas

NexusCard, Inc. (“NexusCard”), a California corporation with its principal place of business in Lake Forest, California, filed a patent infringement action on August 18, 2015, against grocery chain Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc....more

En Banc Federal Circuit Maintains Laches Defense With Post-Suit Twist (SCA V. First Quality)

Today, in SCA v. First Quality, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc ruled that the equitable doctrine of laches remains a valid defense in patent infringement actions notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in...more

Sublicensee’s Purchase of Licensee Not Prohibited under the License Agreement - VDF FutureCeuticals, Inc. v. Stiefel Labs., Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a sublicensee of patent and trademark rights that purchased its sublicensor in order to reduce the royalties it owned to the licensor was not prohibited from buying...more

IP Newsflash - August 2015 #4

SUPREME COURT CASES - The Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Charging Royalties After Patent Expiration - In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, 576 U.S. ---- (2015), the Supreme Court declined to overrule its...more

Supreme Court Corner – Q3 2015

In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, the Supreme Court upheld a long-standing precedent that restricts the ability of a patent holder to charge a royalty beyond the term of a patent. In a 6-3 decision, the Court declined to...more

Standard-essential Patents and the RAND Requirement: Recent Decisions on Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory Royalties

Issues related to standard-essential patents (SEPs) have generated significant attention in the wake of the first appellate decisions on royalties for SEPs – Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems. 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...more

Enovsys v. AT&T: Court Excludes Plaintiff's Damage Expert for Failure to Apportion and Sua Sponte Bifurcates Trial into Liability...

After the court struck plaintiff's damage expert's report for failing to tie damages to the limited feature of the patented invention, the court permitted the plaintiff to submit a supplemental expert report. Once the...more

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court Decision Regarding Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Obligations in Patent Licensing...

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict awarding Microsoft $14.5 million for Motorola's breach of its obligation to offer Microsoft reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licenses for certain...more

Ninth Circuit Affirms Judge Robart’s RAND Decision (Microsoft V. Motorola)

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals issued a decision affirming Judge Robart’s RAND decision in the much watched Microsoft v. Motorola case, basically ruling that the determination of a reasonable and...more

Smartflash v. Apple: After $500M Verdict, District Court Grants New Trial on Damages Based on Improper Use of Entire Market Value...

After a jury returned a verdict against Apple, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The district court subsequently notified the parties pursuant to Rule 59(d) that it was considering granting...more

Check Your Technology License: Payments May Be Unenforceable

Expiration of a patent also terminates the rights to collect royalties on that patent – even if a license contract says otherwise. All businesses are reminded to check the termination date of any patent licensed to the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Patent Holders Can’t Charge Royalties After Patent Expires

In a decision issued June 22, 2015 — Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC — the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed and declined to overrule long-standing precedent holding that a patent holder cannot charge royalties for...more

Supreme Court: No Patent Royalties May Accrue After Patent Expiration

With Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the controversial Brulotte v.Thys Co. decision, which prohibited collection of patent-based royalties that accrue after patent expiration. The Court...more

How Not to Get Snared in Brulotte’s Web

The Supreme Court’s Kimble Decision Reminds Licensors and Licensees to Evaluate Post-Expiration Royalties with Care - On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court, in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, declined to overrule–on...more

Everything Old is New Again: Post-Expiration Patent Royalties are a Bad Idea!

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court upheld the longstanding case law that prohibits a patent owner from receiving royalties after a patent has expired. In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (June 22, 2015) 2015 U.S....more

The Finite Life of a Patent Upheld: No Royalties After Expiration

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling citing stare decisis, upheld the half-century rule against royalty payments accruing after expiration of a patent. The Court’s decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC is a...more

Rebuffing Critics, Supreme Court Re-Affirms Ban on Post-Expiration Patent Royalties

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. Brulotte has been widely criticized as economically...more

Supreme Court Upholds Brulotte Rule Prohibiting Post-Expiration Patent Royalties

On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, upholding the rule, first announced in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29 (1964), that an agreement allowing a patent owner to...more

The 'Super Powered' Rule of Stare Decisis Defeats Spider Man

The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 decision, left undisturbed the rule from its 51-year-old decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964), invoking stare decisis and rejecting arguments seeking to overturn the rule...more

U.S. Supreme Court Confirms That Post Patent Expiration Royalties Are Prohibited

Background of the Case - The dispute in Stephen Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 13-720, ___ U.S. ___ (2015), arose out of a 2001 settlement of a prior lawsuit between the parties. The prior suit had...more

Getting Tangled in the Web of a Hybrid Royalty Clause Part II: Supreme Court Re-affirms Brulotte Decision

In July of 2013, I wrote a blog post about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC and its effect upon royalty provisions in hybrid IP license agreements. (...) By “hybrid” I am...more

Supreme Court Declines To Overrule Brulotte Rule: Post-Expiration Patent Royalties Remain Unlawful

Background - Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a patent license agreement that requires the licensee to pay royalties after the expiration of the licensed patent is unlawful per se, because such payments...more

83 Results
View per page
Page: of 4

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.