Attorney Fee Awards For Misconduct On A Winning Streak In Federal Court.

27 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Intellectual Property, Legal Ethics, Patent Law, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Attorney Fee Awards For Misconduct On A Winning Streak In Federal Court.

Tags

Dennis Crouch, Lawyer Misconduct, Legal Ethics, Patent Law, PatentlyO Blog

Federal Circuit: Bad Lawyering! = Sanctionable Litigation Misconduct, by Dennis Crouch, PATENTLYO Blog

“The opinion here was authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Bryson.(Read the decision: Gamma v. CSU).”

Attorney fee awards have been on a hot-streak since the Supreme Court’s 2014 Octane Fitness decision lowering the standard for proving an ‘exceptional case’ under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Under the statute, a district court judge is empowered to award ‘reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party’ to a patent infringement lawsuit, but only in ‘exceptional cases.’ Id. In Octane Fitness, the Supreme Court gave the lower court fairly wide latitude in deciding exceptional case judgment and the award of fees. In particular, courts are given authority to consider the totality-of-the-circumstances when determining whether a fee award is appropriate. In the parallel case of Highmark, the court held that those lower-court determinations should be given deference on appeal. . . .

Continue reading →

How Essential Are Graphics To The Judge And Jury In A Patent Trial?

11 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on How Essential Are Graphics To The Judge And Jury In A Patent Trial?

Tags

Cogent Legal Blog, Hon. James Ware, Hon. Paul Grewal, Intellectual Property, Michael Kelleher, Patent Law, Trial Graphics, Trial Tips & Techniques

The Need for Graphics in a Patent Trial, and Other Insights from Judges, by Michael Kelleher, Cogent Legal Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nwxwmw5

Good graphics are critical for understanding patent cases. I mean real graphics, pictures, not just words on a PowerPoint. Seeing an illustration or an animation in a trial or a mediation is key to understanding the technology in a patent. − Hon. James Ware

After deliberations have finished, I’ve seen that the pictures were important to jurors because the whiteboards in the jury room often have the jurors’ reproductions of the pictures and diagrams that the attorneys used during trial. The juries are not writing out the long claims of the patents. Instead, they discuss the case in abstractions using those pictures from trial. − Hon. Paul Grewal

These judicial observations on graphics in patent trials came from a judges’ panel at last weekend’s Annual Meeting of the San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association (SFIPLA) in Healdsburg, California. As usual, the annual meeting provided wonderful opportunities to learn about recent developments in intellectual property law and to network and relax with leading IP attorneys and judges. . . .

Statute of Limitations And Copyright Infringement.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Statute of Limitations And Copyright Infringement.

Tags

Copyright, Dennis Crouch, Infringement, Laches, Patent Law, PatentlyO Blog, Separate-Accrual Rule, Statute of Limitations

Supreme Court: In Copyright, Laches Cannot Preclude Actions Taken Within Three Year Statute of Limitations, by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pqwudqa

Petrella v. MGM (Supreme Court 2014)

Frank Petrella wrote a screenplay back in 1963 based on the life of Jake LaMotta and assigned rights to UA/MGM who made the movie Raging Bull. Under the old renewal system, renewal rights went to Petrella’s heir, Paula Petrella, who renewed the copyright in 1991 in a fashion that (seemingly) eliminates the prior license. In 1998 she informed MGM that its continued exploitation of the Raging Bull movie violated her copyright. Finally, in 2009, she did sue – alleging copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement has a three-year statute of limitations indicating that ‘No civil action shall be maintained under the [Act] unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.’ 17 U.S.C. §507(b). However, as in patent law, copyright follows a ‘separate-accrual rule’ that sees each successive violation of a copyright as a new infringing act with its own statute of limitations. Thus, under the statute of limitations, MGM could be liable for its post-2006 actions such as copying and distributing the work. . . .

Apple Loses Billions In Damages To Samsung In 2nd Patent-Infringement Lawsuit.

04 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Apple, Martyn Williams, Patent Infringement, Patent Law, PC World News, Samsung, Silicon Valley, Smartphones

Jury Finds Samsung Infringed Some Apple Patents, Must Pay $120M In Damages, by Martyn Williams, PC World News

http://bit.ly/1kDlj2L

Apple was dealt a blow in its second major patent-infringement lawsuit against Samsung when a Silicon Valley jury awarded the iPhone maker damages of just US$119.65 million for Samsung’s infringement of several of its smartphone patents.

Apple had requested $2.2 billion in damages.

The decision by the eight-person jury came at the end of the third full day of deliberations. . . .