Day 17 of One Month to More Effective Continuous Improvement-Financial Health Monitoring
This Year's AmLaw 100: "Fundamental Recovery" for Some
A monumental victory for the Swinomish Indian Tribe was announced this spring when a judge in the Western District of Washington ordered BNSF Railway Company to pay nearly $400 million in profits damages to the Swinomish...more
A federal court has ruled that a photographer may not recover certain profits indirectly related to authorized copies of his work. The case is Graham v. Prince, No. 15-CV-10160 (SHS), 2023 WL 5917712 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11,...more
On March 11, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal of the Federal Court’s decision ordering Apotex to pay over $61M from an accounting of profits from Apotex’s infringement of ADIR’s perindopril patent...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted writ of certiorari in a case with significant potential to alter the trademark infringement damages calculus. In that case, Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc. et al., Case No....more
On Friday, June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. to decide whether a showing of willfulness is necessary to obtain a defendant’s profits under the Lanham Act....more
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), trademark holder who proves infringement may receive as damages an award of profits “subject to the principles of equity.” This phrase has divided the circuit courts going back several decades, with...more
A petition for writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court asks the Court to decide whether a plaintiff must prove willful infringement to obtain an award of a trademark infringer’s profits for a violation of 15...more
Earlier this month, a federal jury in North Carolina hit Walmart with a $95.5 million verdict for its willful infringement of Variety Stores, Inc.’s “BACKYARD” trademarks. The jury awarded $45.5 million as a reasonable...more
On July 18, 2018 the well-known luxury goods company, Cartier International AG and Cartier, a division of Richemont North America Inc. (collectively, “Cartier” or “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in the United States District Court...more
Smart & Biggar prevails at trial on behalf of Diageo in trade dress case. On June 12, 2017, the Federal Court issued its 99-page decision in Diageo Canada Inc v Heaven Hill Distilleries Inc et al, 2017 FC 571. The Court...more
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) alleging that several Samsung smartphones infringed utility and design patents owned...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 opinion reversed and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit an award to Apple, Inc. of $399 million of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s total profits on...more
The Supreme Court of the United States handed Samsung a victory yesterday by reversing a $400 million judgment previously won by Apple for infringement of several of Apple's design patents. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the...more
A unanimous Supreme Court held in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. that Section 289 of the Patent Act does not demand that the entire, infringing end-user product be the basis for determining damages for design patent...more
Since their initial release, smartphones have been a hot commodity with intense competition. One particularly contentious issue has been their appearance. During early development, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) obtained several...more
On December 6, 2016, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the damages award in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. The question before the...more
A Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Pulls Back the Reach of Damages Awards for Design Patents Summary The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, unanimously held that damages awards for design patent infringement need...more
In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States today reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision upholding Apple Inc.’s nearly $400 million design patent award against Samsung Electronics Co.,...more
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision on the issue of damages for design patent infringement that continues the Apple v. Samsung smartphone legal odyssey. It also marks only the second time...more
The Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 ruled that when considering the basis for awarding damages based on the infringer’s profits from infringing a design patent, it is not necessary to base these damages on the profit made...more
I often get asked by clients to discuss the differences between design patents and trade dress. Both are intellectual property protections that protect similar aspects of a product—the appearance and aesthetic features. Last...more
In Texas, lost profits can’t be recovered as damages unless proven to a “reasonable certainty”. Question 1: What does that mean? Question 2: Does it matter if the deal is in Bulgaria? Let’s get rid of the...more