In WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., the US Supreme Court held that "under the Patent Act, a company can be liable for patent
infringement if it ships components of a patented
invention overseas to be assembled there." See 35 U. S. C. §271(f)(2). The Court stated under 35 U.S.C. §284 "a patent owner who proves infringement
under this provision is entitled to recover damages" and held the patent owner should recover its lost foreign profits ($90 Million).
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label 35 USC 284. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 35 USC 284. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Friday, February 26, 2016
Professor Ronald Mann - Justices Unsettled on Standard for Enhanced Damages in Patent Cases
Professor Ronald Mann has an interesting post: Argument aalysis: Justices unsettled on standard for enhanced damages in patent cases on the SCOTUS blog.
More specifically, the Supreme Court hearing revisits how to interpret 35 U.S.C. 284, which states "Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed."
Commentators are speculating this case will change the standard in favor of patent owners, but I think Professor Ronald Mann has a more realistic view based on the hearing that the justices are unsettled and struggling as to the standard for enhanced damages.
In my opinion, Justice Scalia "irreverent" and insightful views were missed. At least Justice Breyer's insistence that big companies are often threatening little companies with enhanced damages is an "EFF balloon" that needed to be "burst" by someone. Justice Breyer's narrow interpretation when to award enhanced damages makes it too difficult to obtain them and would encourage patent infringement by big companies.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
More specifically, the Supreme Court hearing revisits how to interpret 35 U.S.C. 284, which states "Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed."
Commentators are speculating this case will change the standard in favor of patent owners, but I think Professor Ronald Mann has a more realistic view based on the hearing that the justices are unsettled and struggling as to the standard for enhanced damages.
In my opinion, Justice Scalia "irreverent" and insightful views were missed. At least Justice Breyer's insistence that big companies are often threatening little companies with enhanced damages is an "EFF balloon" that needed to be "burst" by someone. Justice Breyer's narrow interpretation when to award enhanced damages makes it too difficult to obtain them and would encourage patent infringement by big companies.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)