Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Will the Supreme Court Seismically Shift the Patent Damages Landscape in <i>WesternGeco v. ION</i>?
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether a patentee may recover foreign lost profits resulting from infringement of a United States patent.
In WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., the Federal Circuit vacated the lost profits portion of a damages award because the profits resulted from activity on the high seas, outside the territorial reach of United States patent law. 791 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) [WesternGeco I], vacated on other grounds, 136 S. Ct. 2486 (2016). The majority opinion billed the decision as largely dictated by settled precedent, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari this January to review the holding.
The specific issue is whether profits earned overseas with a patented invention may be recovered by the patentee if components of that invention were exported from the United States in violation of Section 271(f). The Supreme Court's agreement to consider the case could signal an impending expansion of the territorial damages in patent cases. A decision is expected by the end of June.
Statutory Background
Incurring Liability for 'Overseas' Infringement
At the center of a typical patent infringement case usually lie allegations of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), which provides that making, using, offering to sell, or selling a patented invention within the United States is infringement of a patent. To establish infringement under that commonly invoked provision, a patentee must prove unauthorized products or processes in the United States that meet each element of a patent claim — for example, the sale of a device in California that meets each limitation of an apparatus claim or the use of a process in New York that uses each step of a method claim.
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 [email protected] 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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?