Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Is Reasonable?
Several recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court have arguably tipped the scales toward alleged infringers involved in a patent battle. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court ('Supreme Court') in KSR Inter- national Co. v. Teleflex Inc., __ U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) modified the standard for obviousness thereby making it easier for alleged infringers to invalidate patents. In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006), the Supreme Court modified the standard for determining the propriety of injunctions, making it more difficult for certain plaintiffs to obtain permanent injunctions against infringers. Finally, in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., __ U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 764 (2007), the Supreme Court made it easier for alleged infringers to argue there is a case or controversy, and thereby prospectively haul patent holders into court by filing a declaratory judgment action. However, a recent decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ('Federal Circuit') may help tip the scales back toward patent holders and thereby provide some additional leverage to patent holders in discussions with alleged infringers. In Amado v. Microsoft Corp., __ F.3d __, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4065 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2008), the Federal Circuit indicated that after a verdict of infringement, the infringing party may be subject to a different (higher) royalty for post-verdict sales of the infringing product than was determined for past (i.e., pre-verdict) infringing sales.
What Is Reasonable for Infringement Before Trial '
Carlos Armando Amado ('Amado') brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ('District Court') against Microsoft Corporation ('Microsoft') alleging that several versions of Microsoft's Office Suite product infringed his patent directed to a 'point and shoot interface for linking database records to spreadsheets whereby data of a record is automatically reformatted and loaded upon issuance of a recalculation command' (i.e., a software program combining the functionalities of spreadsheet and database software). At trial, the jury ruled that Amado's patent was valid and infringed by Microsoft, and awarded Amado damages equivalent to a 4 cents reasonable royalty for each infringing product sold. No willful infringement was found. Amado then sought a permanent injunction against Microsoft, which the District Court granted but then stayed pending appeal. The District Court further required that Microsoft deposit $2 into escrow for each infringing product sold during the stay.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at customercare@alm.com or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?