Section 286 of the Patent Act “sets forth a limitation on damages.” Adams & Associates v. Dell. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for …
Peter v. NantKwest was decided by the Supreme Court on December 11, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. The USPTO rejected Nantkwest’s patent application on obviousness grounds. The PTAB affirmed the rejection, and Nantkwest appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After prevailing at the …
This post will track the issued remedies in the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The post will not cover patent invalidity decisions from the USPTO or the district court. The dispute started on April 15, 2011, with a complaint by Apple against Samsung in the Northern District of California, …
WesternGeco v. ION was decided by the Supreme Court on June 21, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. At trial, the jury found defendant ION liable and awarded plaintiff WesternGeco $12.5 million in royalties and $93.4 million in lost profits. WesternGeco claimed it was entitled to lost profits after “it …
2017 was a busy year for patent remedies. Except for the Supreme Court decision on laches, most of the action happened in the Federal Circuit. The graph below shows how many times each decision has been cited by another court. It’s updated as to January 26, 2018. 1. Laches …
SCA Hygiene v. First Quality was decided by the Supreme Court on March 21, 2017 on appeal from the Western District of Kentucky. There, the district court granted defendant First Quality’s summary judgment motion of laches and equitable estoppel. A Federal Circuit panel affirmed as to laches, but reversed as to …
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 …
Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics was decided by the Supreme Court on June 13, 2016 on appeal from the District of Nevada. There, a jury found that defendant Pulse had infringed plaintiff Halo’s patent, and that the infringement was probably willful. Applying the then-standard Seagate, the district court declined to enhance …
eBay v. MerkExchange was decided by the Supreme Court on May 15, 2006 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. Following a jury verdict of infringement, the district court denied plaintiff MerkExchange’s motion for a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed and ruled that MerkExchange was entitled to an injunction, applying …