Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Patent Act provides for damages "in no event less than a reasonable royalty." 35 U.S.C. §284. In many patent cases, that royalty ends up being the measure of damages: a percentage of the infringer's revenues from the infringing sales.
In some cases, however, the patent owner may instead seek to recover the profits that it lost as a result of the infringement. To recover lost profits, the patent owner must prove that its own products compete with the infringing products, that the infringer's sales displaced sales that the patent owner otherwise would and could have made, and that there was no non-infringing alternative in the market to which consumers would have turned instead in the absence of the infringer's sales.
In two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit and a Delaware district court took account of the underlying economic conditions that permit and prevent awards of lost profits, and looked at the implications of those conditions on otherwise unrelated areas of law. In September, the Federal Circuit ordered a transfer of a case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, holding that the longer time to trial in the transferee venue did not weigh against transfer because the plaintiff patent assertion entity could not seek lost profits. In re Juniper Networks, 14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Last year, a Delaware district court granted a permanent injunction based in large part on the jury's award of lost profits damages related to one of the infringing products, while denying injunctive relief as to the other infringing products that were not the subject of the jury's lost profits award. f'real Foods v. Hamilton Beach Brands, No. 16-41-CFC, 2020 WL 4015481 (D. Del. July 16, 2020).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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?
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.