Need another reason to secure and enforce design patents? Design patents offer a unique additional remedy in district court litigation: profit disgorgement. While design patent owners may still pursue the traditional remedies...more
The split among district courts as to whether the filing of a patent infringement complaint provides notice to a defendant of its infringing conduct sufficient to support a claim of willful infringement was the subject of a...more
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because...more
Recently in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:17-cv-08509 (C.D. Cal.) (October 26, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant, Skechers U.S.A.,...more
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent...more
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,1 the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. Section 284 provides for enhanced damages in egregious cases...more
In the August 2018 edition of Hogan Lovells’ Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Update, we report on recent news and case decisions from China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This bi-monthly newsletter...more
The prominent state of patent litigation in the United States and Germany is due not only to the size of its markets, but also to a recent increase in hearings before the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Patent...more
Jackson Walker partner Leisa Talbert Peschel spoke at the 14th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course on Thursday, July 12, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado. ...more
Patents are valuable intellectual property assets that grant their owners a limited monopoly over the sale and use of the patented subject matter for a fixed period of time. The patent permits its owner to recover potentially...more
Lost Foreign Profits Awarded as Damages - It is an act of infringement under U.S. patent law to supply “in or from the United States” certain components of a patented invention with the intent that they “will be combined...more
Case at a Glance: The Court will consider whether the text of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) imposes liability on those supplying from the United States components of a patented invention “in such a manner as to actively induce the...more
Historically, patent owners have pled willful infringement in an effort to support the collection of enhanced damages from an infringer. Typically, if there was willful infringement the damages were enhanced and often...more
Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo - Why it matters: On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as...more
Patent holders have faced a number of new challenges to successfully enforce their patent rights over the last several years. The creation and implementation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and inter partes review...more
The Supreme Court of the United States traced two centuries of analysis related to enhanced damages in patent cases to conclude that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s two-part test, announced nearly a decade...more
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (No. 2015-446, 6/20/16) (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan) - June 20, 2016 12:49 PM - Breyer, J. Affirming Federal Circuit decision that the...more
In a relatively rare “pro-patent” decision, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week unanimously overruled the Federal Circuit’s so-called Seagate standard for finding willful patent infringement and awarding enhanced...more
Section 284 of The Patent Act provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Under Seagate, to be entitled to enhanced damages under § 284, a patent...more
Patent owners will more likely seek enhanced damages; accused infringers no longer insulated by “attorney’s ingenuity” after the fact. Summary - The Federal Circuit’s 2007 Seagate decision raised the bar for...more
Although under the Patent Act, “a court may increase the damages [for patent infringement] up to three times,” 35 U.S.C. § 284, enhanced damages awards are infrequent. For nearly a decade, the Federal Circuit’s en banc...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s two-part Seagate test for awarding enhanced damages under 35 USC § 284, finding that both the substantive requirement for...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Halo Electronics, decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v Pulse Electronics, Inc., in which the Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test and established a...more
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid two-part test for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In two cases decided together, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., and...more