Verdict goes against medical device maker When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that an appellate court’s infringement ruling should be reconsidered, it probably seemed like good news to the medical device maker that had been found liable in the initial ruling. Alas, the new ruling that followed reconsideration also went against the company. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found the position in the company’s defense “objectively unreasonable.”
Appellate court extends EMCA safe harbor The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on the hotly debated issue of whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA’s) safe harbor provision applies to sound recordings created before 1972. That’s when Congress first extended copyright protections to such recordings. With Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, the Second Circuit is the first federal appellate court to tackle the question, and its opinion no doubt brought a huge sigh of relief from Internet service providers.
Federal Circuit narrow on-sale bar to patents The full panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears all patent-related appeals, has delivered a ruling in The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc. that’s sure to be welcomed by patent holders. In a unanimous decision, the court provided guidance on what constitutes a sale for purposes of the on-sale bar to patent validity.
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to present the Year End 2016 issue of Ideas on Intellectual Property Law. We encourage you to read through it for ideas about ways you can protect your intellectual property.
Italy-1421. An Italian inventor is about to make patent history. Architect and engineer Filippo Brunelleschi was granted a patent on the manufacturing of a barge with a hoisting gear—a device that streamlined the transportation of marble. The patent resulted in Brunelleschi acquiring a three-year monopoly on the manufacturing and sales of the new barge. While monopolies are only celebrated today when you secure Park Place and Boardwalk, Brunelleschi revolutionized national and global business as his idea would influence society for the next 600 years—patenting your hard work and creative ideas is a profitable business decision.
The jury giveth — and the court taketh away. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., a trademark holder learned this lesson the hard way when the two courts rejected a jury award of almost $7 million against an infringer because the infringement wasn’t “willful.”
Ruling loosens standard for enhanced patent infringement damages The U.S. Supreme Court has released its long-awaited decision on the proper criteria for enhanced damages awards in patent infringement cases. The unanimous ruling should make it easier for patent holders to recover such damages — and give some would-be infringers pause for thought.
Owners of infringed patents typically are limited to recovering damages that occur after the patent was issued. However, they may also be entitled to damages for infringing conduct that occurs preissuance, but after publication, of the patent application if the accused infringer had “actual notice” of it. In Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed what constitutes such notice for the first time since the statute authorizing such preissuance damages was enacted in 1999.