LEGO v. ZURU is a nonprecedential case decided on January 15, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut. Plaintiff LEGO filed a complaint against defendant ZURU for copyright, trademark, and patent infringement and obtained a temporary restraining order. After a hearing, the court granted LEGO’s motion for a preliminary …
Automotive Body Parts Association v. Ford Global Technologies was decided on July 23, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiff Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) sued defendant Ford seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of two design patents covering a vehicle’s hood and headlamp respectively. ABPA …
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of the hardships tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. The …
Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health laid out the standard for exceptionality: an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the …
A party seeking an injunction must make a clear showing that it is at risk of irreparable harm. In cases where “the accused product includes many features of which only one (or a small minority) infringe,” a finding that the patentee will be at risk of irreparable harm “does not …
This post deals with recovering total profits under 35 U.S.C. §289 for design patent infringement. Under Section 289, a design patent infringer is “liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit,” that is, all the profit made from the manufacture or sale “of the article of manufacture …
Nordock v. Systems is a nonprecedential case decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and awarded Nordock $46,825 as a reasonable royalty, indicating that Systems’ profits were $0. The …
Apple v. Samsung was decided on February 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million — the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The …
Link to article on Law360. 2016 was a busy year for patent remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases, one on willfulness and the other on design patent damages. The Federal Circuit made law on willfulness, enhancement, attorney fees, antitrust damages, preissuance patent damages, and laches. This article will review these …
Samsung v. Apple was decided by the Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million, the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed …