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 held that an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a …
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 held that an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive …
To prevail on the defense of inequitable conduct, the accused infringer must prove that the applicant misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent to deceive the PTO. Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (en banc). The accused infringer must prove both elements — intent and materiality — by clear and convincing evidence. Id. A district court should not use a …
Section 283 of the Patent Act provides that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” There are several types of relief for ongoing infringement that a court can …
35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that “the court shall award [the patent owner] damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” “A patent owner, having prevailed on liability, may receive a reasonable royalty or lost …
“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of …
“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of …
“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of …
“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of …
“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of …