New years resolutions are one of the world’s longest standing traditions. Throughout January, people will reflect on their personal and professional goals and ambitions to set forth on a new journey—often making a list of what they hope to accomplish. This year, we recommend adding one small piece to that list—protecting your ideas.
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.”
Ideas that lead to groundbreaking innovations are remembered for eternity. However, the difference between protecting and losing those ideas sometimes come down to a single moment in time. For Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray it was moment that shaped global communications forever.
Our litigation team is giving a free lecture next Friday, October 28 at Pericles, Practical Concerns Affecting Foreign Litigants in US Courts and How US Political Issues Affect the Court System. They will discuss concerns that affect foreign litigants in US courts, including (1) deciding where to litigate: federal or state court, and (2) ongoing changes in the law that affect the outcome of civil cases.
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.”
Design patents come with their own set of rules. Maybe that’s why they’ve increasingly become subject to attack by parties that fear they’ll be accused of infringement. A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co. Inc. provides guidance about what to expect when a court considers the scope of design patent claims.
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.
Responding to a Patent Infringement Cease and Desist Letter Competing in today’s business climate is difficult enough without the addition of legal headaches. But legal conflicts are part of modern business and sometimes arise in the form of a cease and desist letter from a patent owner. These letters follow a familiar form where a patent owner identifies the patented invention, claims that your product uses it without permission, and demands that in the very near future you either pay up, stop the activity, or both.
Inequitable conduct results in outsized antitrust award Bringing a patent infringement lawsuit always comes with certain financial risks. For example, if you lose a case, you forfeit costs and fees. That isn’t the only potential risk, though. One patent infringement lawsuit, TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co., backfired in a much bigger way. The patentee was ordered to pay $26 million — in antitrust damages — based on its inequitable conduct.
On the tail of a number of important courtroom wins, intellectual property law firm Patterson Thuente IP welcomes attorney Adam Szymanski to help support its growing IP Litigation practice. Szymanski has experience with litigation surrounding patents, trademarks, and other IP-related disputes, as well as post issuance proceedings. He has worked on the transactional side of IP law as well and has a technical background in advanced materials, life science technologies, chemicals, and nanotechnology.