Day 17 of One Month to More Effective Continuous Improvement-Financial Health Monitoring
This Year's AmLaw 100: "Fundamental Recovery" for Some
The Supreme Court of Canada recently clarified the role of non-infringing options as well as springboard profits when calculating profits in patent infringement cases....more
On November 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its decision in Nova Chemicals Corp v Dow Chemical Co (2022 SCC 43). This decision upheld the largest monetary award to date in a Canadian patent infringement...more
On September 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to Apotex (Docket No. 39172) with respect to a decision affirming the quantum of profits payable to the Plaintiffs ADIR and Servier for infringement of ADIR’S...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 American Bar Association (“ABA”) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the petitioner in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233....more
In June 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233. As set forth in our previous blog post, Romag Fasteners Inc. (“Romag”) seeks to have the Court...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
Hogan Lovells’ U.S. + German Patent Update reports on recent patent news and cases from Germany and the United States. United States - - U.S. Congress Introduces Bill Addressing Patent Subject Matter Eligibility -...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
Servier and its related company ADIR were successful in another chapter of patent litigation relating to perindopril (Servier’s COVERSYL): the Federal Court again dismissed Apotex’s non-infringing alternative defence, finding...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 Federal Court has issued their Public Judgment and Reasons concerning the financial compensation to be paid as a result of earlier patent infringement and validity proceedings between Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) and NOVA...more
On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant decision on accounting for profits, a remedy for patent infringement in Canada: Apotex Inc v ADIR, 2017 FCA 23. The appeal concerned two defences raised...more
December has been a hot month for IP law, with important developments in several cases that may significantly impact your intellectual property prosecution and enforcement strategies. Here is a brief summary of each of these...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