In Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, the Federal Circuit held corporate officers and employees who actively assist with their corporation’s infringement may be personally liable for inducing infringement even without any piercing...more
The Federal Circuit in Lubby Holdings v. Chung overturned a jury verdict finding that Lubby satisfied Sec. 287(a)’s requirement to notify Chung of his infringement. Was this reversible error, or has the court determined that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s finding of liability for infringement that occurred prior to the filing of the action, explaining that notwithstanding the defendant’ admission that...more
Section 287 of the U.S. Patent Act gives a patent owner the ability to recover damages for patent infringement in two ways: (1) if a patented article is marked; or (2) if actual notice of infringement has been provided. The...more
LUBBY HOLDINGS LLC v. CHUNG - Before Dyk, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the Central District of California. Summary: Specific charges of infringement by a specific accused product are required to provide actual...more
Recently, in Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No 19-2041 (July 14, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of $3.5 million in pre-suit damages and vacated the trial court’s...more
PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Summary: The defendant’s infringement of method claims through...more
MYCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BLEPHEX, LLC - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - Summary: Enjoining a patentee from making statements about...more
In a February 19, 2020 decision the Federal Circuit held that a patentee does not escape 35 U.S.C. § 287’s marking requirement merely by ceasing sales of the practicing product. Instead, the Federal Circuit held that once a...more
The patent marking statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) appears straightforward: Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing...more
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Southern District of Florida. Summary: To recover pre-complaint damages for infringement after sales of unmarked...more