Tag Archives: Patent damages

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee.  One of the questions presented to the Court was the appropriate claim construction standard for inter partes review (IPR).  The fundamental dispute, as … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Cuozzo Conundrum: Prosecution History Estoppel Remains An Open Issue

Through its recent decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.[1], the Supreme Court discarded the mechanical two-part test governing enhanced damages fashioned by the Federal Circuit in Seagate, and gave district courts broad discretion to decide when to … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Relaxes The Standard For Increased Patent Damages

On March 23, 2016, Glaser Weil Partner, Mieke Malmberg, along with co-presenter, Jason Angell of Freitas Angell & Weinberg, LLP, presented a one hour talk on changes in patent litigation to participants in a one day conference sponsored by the … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Glaser Weil Partner Mieke Malmberg Speaking at “Patent Disputes for Our Time: New Realities, New Approaches”, Presented by the State Bar of California

Summary In its February 12, 2016 decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed two issues: (1) whether patent exhaustion applies when a patented item is sold subject to an express single-use/no-resale restriction, and then … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc. – The Latest on Patent Exhaustion

On February 11, 2016, Glaser Weil Partner, Mieke Malmberg, presented a one hour webinar sponsored by the State Bar of California on the use of the Federal Circuit’s Model order on electronic discovery in patent cases. Many times parties stipulate … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Slaying the Dragon: Understanding and Effectively Managing the Use of the Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

In this third article relating to patent damages, we explore the effects of implied indemnification provisions when evaluating who is responsible for litigation costs when faced with an infringement suit. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and California Commercial Code provide … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Navigating Patent Damages Part III: Statutory Indemnification – Implied Warranty Against Infringement

Previously, we discussed the implications of the failure to mark defense on damages prior to the filing of a patent case.  In this next article in the series, we examine how allegations of direct and/or indirect infringement, as well as … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Navigating Patent Damages Part II: How Infringement Allegations Can Impact or Limit Potential Damages

Navigating damages in patent cases is a complex exercise. In this series, beginning with the marking statute, we explore various nuances of damages analysis. Pursuant to statutory authority, it is well known that a patent holder may recover infringement damages … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Navigating Patent Damages Part I: A Primer on the Failure to Mark Defense