Patent Law Weblog

recent posts

about

Category: Damages

  • Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (2016)

    By Kevin E. Noonan — The aphorism that "[t]he race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet," variously attributed to Damon Runyon, Franklin P. Adams, and Hugh Keough, could readily be updated to include that "Federal Circuit opinions are not always overturned by the…

  • Transweb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    Antitrust Violation Found in Patent Infringement Litigation, and (Trebled) Attorney Fees for Defending Infringement Awarded as Damages By Joseph Herndon — On February 10, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in a case captioned Transweb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Company, 3M Company. 3M had sued TransWeb for infringement of several patents.  TransWeb sued…

  • Trolls v. Pirates: Supreme Court Oral Argument Reviewing Enhanced Damages

    By Andrew Williams — Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases:  Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1520).  The issue on appeal in the Halo case was limited to Question 1 presented in the…

  • Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    Despite Amendments during Reexamination, Intervening Rights Not Found By Joseph Herndon — On February 10, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in a case captioned Convolve, Inc., and Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Compaq Computer Corp., Seagate Technology, Inc., and Seagate Technology, LLC. This case has been before the Federal Circuit previously, and returns…

  • The Supreme Court to Review Enhanced Damages — Octane Revisited, or Something Entirely Different?

    By Andrew Williams — On October 19, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases:  Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1520).  The issue on appeal in the Halo case was limited to Question 1 presented in…

  • R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

    Be Wary of Claim Amendments During Reexamination By Joseph Herndon — Traditional patent law holds that a patentee of a patent that survives reexamination is only entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of issuance of the reexamined claims if the original…

  • AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

    By Kevin E. Noonan — Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit rendered a decision on damages in what may be the last of a long-running series of ANDA cases involving AstraZeneca's Prilosec® (omeprazole) franchise.  As set forth in the opinion, AstraZeneca's lawsuit against Apotex was part of the "second wave" of ANDA litigation, wherein the…