Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
•
0 likes•661 views
Transocean sued Maersk for patent infringement over multi-activity offshore drilling rigs. Maersk had signed a contract in Norway to sell a rig to a US company for use in the Gulf of Mexico. The Federal Circuit found this constituted an "offer to sell" and "sale" under US law, even though negotiations and contracting occurred overseas. The court also ruled secondary considerations showed the patents were not obvious and claims were sufficiently enabled. Maersk was found to infringe but not willfully so.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Sending & Receiving Patent-Related Cease & Desist Letters
Sending & Receiving Patent-Related Cease & Desist Letters
May 2015 Administrative Estoppel Presentation
The following presentation provides an overview of administrative estoppel and its preclusive effects in relation to intellectual property cases.
Eipr article
Intellectual Property and Competition: Does the Essential Facilities Doctrine Shed Any New Light?
ITC Markman Ruling in Patent Case Against Samsung, Qualcomm
A U.S. International Trade Commission judge has returned a pretrial claim construction ruling that favors NVIDIA on nearly all of the claims that were disputed in our patent case against Samsung and Qualcomm.
Recommended
Sending & Receiving Patent-Related Cease & Desist Letters
Sending & Receiving Patent-Related Cease & Desist Letters
May 2015 Administrative Estoppel Presentation
The following presentation provides an overview of administrative estoppel and its preclusive effects in relation to intellectual property cases.
Eipr article
Intellectual Property and Competition: Does the Essential Facilities Doctrine Shed Any New Light?
ITC Markman Ruling in Patent Case Against Samsung, Qualcomm
A U.S. International Trade Commission judge has returned a pretrial claim construction ruling that favors NVIDIA on nearly all of the claims that were disputed in our patent case against Samsung and Qualcomm.
Cardiac Pacemakers
Covers a 2009 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that 35 USC 271(f) does not apply to method patent claims.
Doctrine Of Equivalence
NEWS FLASH: //Check our latest course offering on Patent-Business-Strategy over at Udemy here: http://www.udemy.com/patent-business-strategy/ with a 50 per cent launch discount //
A general academic discussion about doctrine of equivalence in US, Japan and other countries as applied by courts in patent infringement cases. [Some material has not been updated for recent changes, so use it at your own risk]
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustion
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss Recent Decisions in Patent Exhaustion:
Bowman, Kirtsaeng and other developments impacting the exhaustion doctrine
Outline
1) First Sale Doctrine in Copyright Law
– Kirtsaeng v. Wiley (2013)
2) Overview of Patent Exhaustion Doctrine
– Quanta v. LG (2008)
3) Patent Exhaustion – “Territoriality Requirement”
– Jazz Photo line of cases
– Recent cases finding exhaustion with foreign sales
– Ninestar v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert. denied (2013)
4) Self-Replicating Technology
– Bowman v. Monsanto (2013)
5) Notable Decision
– Keurig v. Sturm Foods (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Yar Chaikovsky is well regarded in the California market and peers and clients alike recognize his IP litigation practice. His fields of experience include semiconductor, communications, network and computer technologies. He achieved a stunning win for Yahoo! in a jury trial against Bedrock Computer in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, a patent litigation hotspot which many regard as plaintiff friendly. It was the first defense verdict in a patent infringement matter in this division since 2007. He recently represented HTC in ITC and district court patent infringement cases.
Keith Slenkovich is an experienced trial lawyer, who represents technology companies in intellectual property disputes and complex commercial litigation. As lead trial counsel, Mr. Slenkovich has taken more than 20 cases to verdict in state and federal courtrooms throughout the country. His intellectual property experience includes numerous patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark cases, including disputes alleging infringement or misappropriation in the clean tech, telecommunications, semiconductor, software, and manufacturing fields.
AssignmentsCase file for report.docxPage 1 of 2 DOCUM.docx
Assignments/Case file for report.docx
Page
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
XIMPLEWARE CORP., Plaintiff, v.VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.; TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; and AUREA SOFTWARE, INC., Defendants.
No. C 13-05160 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172411
December 6, 2013, Decided
December 6, 2013, Filed
CORE TERMS: discovery, expedited, preliminary injunction, restraining order, temporary, software, license, deposition, declaration, discovery requests, patent infringement, irreparable injury, inclusion, copyright infringement, good cause, irreparable harm, infringement, injunction, injunctive, subpoena, issuance, patent, Lanham Act, ex parte application, declaratory relief, narrowly tailored, overbroad, patch
COUNSEL: [*1] For XimpleWare Corp, Plaintiff: Ansel Jay Halliburton, Christopher Joseph Sargent, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jack Russo, Computerlaw Group LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
For Versata Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Alisa Anne Lipski, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX; Amir Alavi, PRO HAC VICE, AZA, Houston, TX; Benjamin Francis Foster, PRO HAC VICE, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX.
For Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Aurea Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation also known as Aurea, Inc., Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Case Collard, Denver, CO; Gregory Scot Tamkin, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
JUDGES: SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: SUSAN ILLSTON
OPINION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUES FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
On December 4, 2013, the Court held a hearing [*2] on plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, request that the Court order defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and request for expedited discovery. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants argued at the hearing. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's applications for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause, and DENIES plaintiff's request for expedited preliminary discovery.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff XimpleWare Corporation is a California corporation which develops, designs, and licenses software for data processing. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. One of XimpleWare's software products is known as "VTD-XML", an XML or Extensible Markup Language program. Defendant Versata provides software to insurance companies; one of its products is Distribution Channel Management (DCM). Defendant Trilogy Development Group acquired Versata in 2006 and defendant ...
Please readXimpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et A.docx
Please read
Ximpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et Al
, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 172411. I've included the case below.
Be sure to read the case and then brief it using the case brief format found in the tutorials folder under How to Brief a Legal Case. Your assignment submission must use the case brief format which is simply a way to organize your thoughts and it should be 1 page in length with the rationale section being the longest part of the case brief. There is also a tutorial on how to read a legal case.
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
XIMPLEWARE CORP., Plaintiff, v.VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.; TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; and AUREA SOFTWARE, INC., Defendants.
No. C 13-05160 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172411
December 6, 2013, Decided
December 6, 2013, Filed
CORE TERMS:
discovery, expedited, preliminary injunction, restraining order, temporary, software, license, deposition, declaration, discovery requests, patent infringement, irreparable injury, inclusion, copyright infringement, good cause, irreparable harm, infringement, injunction, injunctive, subpoena, issuance, patent, Lanham Act, ex parte application, declaratory relief, narrowly tailored, overbroad, patch
COUNSEL:
[*1]
For XimpleWare Corp, Plaintiff: Ansel Jay Halliburton, Christopher Joseph Sargent, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jack Russo, Computerlaw Group LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
For Versata Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Alisa Anne Lipski, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX; Amir Alavi, PRO HAC VICE, AZA, Houston, TX; Benjamin Francis Foster, PRO HAC VICE, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX.
For Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Aurea Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation also known as Aurea, Inc., Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Case Collard, Denver, CO; Gregory Scot Tamkin, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
JUDGES:
SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY:
SUSAN ILLSTON
OPINION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUES FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
On December 4, 2013, the Court held a hearing
[*2]
on plaintiff's
ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order, request that the Court order defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and request for expedited discovery. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants argued at the hearing. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's applications for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause, and DENIES plaintiff's reque.
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx
1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2016
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL. v.
APPLE INC.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
No. 15–777. Argued October 11, 2016—Decided December 6, 2016
Section 289 of the Patent Act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell
an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable
imitation thereof has been applied and makes an infringer liable to
the patent holder “to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289.
As relevant here, a jury found that various smartphones manufac-
tured by petitioners (collectively, Samsung) infringed design patents
owned by respondent Apple Inc. that covered a rectangular front face
with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen.
Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire profit
from the sale of its infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit af-
firmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that dam-
ages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture
were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. The
court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the com-
ponents of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordi-
nary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture.
Held: In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of
manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the
end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of
that product. Pp. 4–9.
(a) The statutory text resolves the issue here. An “article of manu-
facture,” which is simply a thing made by hand or machine, encom-
passes both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that
product. This reading is consistent with §171(a) of the Patent Act,
which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible
for design patent protection, and which has been understood by the
Patent Office and the courts to permit a design patent that extends to
2 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC.
Syllabus
only a component of a multicomponent product, see, e.g., Ex parte
Adams, 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311; Application of Zahn, 617 F. 2d
261, 268 (CCPA). This reading is also consistent with the Court’s
reading of the term “manufacture” in §101, which makes “any new
and useful . . . manufacture” eligible for utility patent protection. See
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 308. Pp. 4–7.
(b) Because the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough ...
Doctrine of Severability in Law
Discusses the doctrine of severability and its practice in the US, UK, Malaysia, Australia and India in brief.
Law360 - How Duty Of Candor Figures In USPTO AI Ethics Guidance
On April 11, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published its guidance on the use of artificial intelligence-based tools in practice before the USPTO. This article explores the significance of the duty of candor and good faith, which figures prominently in that guidance for both patent and trademark applicants.
Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdf
Order from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dated 03/01/23 denying a motion to dismiss a false advertising claim.
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
In this article, I summarize allegations in a complaint alleging ownership of the word mark "Certified Social Media Strategist" and list trademark principles likely to be considered as the case progresses in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of GA.
Trademark Laws: Georgia
Co-authored this summary of Georgia trademark law, published by the Practical Law Company on May 23, 2013.
Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. Nike
Discusses the January 2013 Supreme Court decision bearing on the issue of when a covenant not to sue can nullify a claim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity. This was a TM case, but its principles are expected to apply to patent cases, as well.
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Discusses the state of the law on this issue prior to the Federal Circuit's decision in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Coach v. Becka
This presentation covers the Coach v. Becka decision entered by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in November 2012.
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Presentation regarding error in Lanham Act as to "registration defense" to dilution actions.
More Related Content
Similar to Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
Cardiac Pacemakers
Covers a 2009 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that 35 USC 271(f) does not apply to method patent claims.
Doctrine Of Equivalence
NEWS FLASH: //Check our latest course offering on Patent-Business-Strategy over at Udemy here: http://www.udemy.com/patent-business-strategy/ with a 50 per cent launch discount //
A general academic discussion about doctrine of equivalence in US, Japan and other countries as applied by courts in patent infringement cases. [Some material has not been updated for recent changes, so use it at your own risk]
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustion
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss Recent Decisions in Patent Exhaustion:
Bowman, Kirtsaeng and other developments impacting the exhaustion doctrine
Outline
1) First Sale Doctrine in Copyright Law
– Kirtsaeng v. Wiley (2013)
2) Overview of Patent Exhaustion Doctrine
– Quanta v. LG (2008)
3) Patent Exhaustion – “Territoriality Requirement”
– Jazz Photo line of cases
– Recent cases finding exhaustion with foreign sales
– Ninestar v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert. denied (2013)
4) Self-Replicating Technology
– Bowman v. Monsanto (2013)
5) Notable Decision
– Keurig v. Sturm Foods (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Yar Chaikovsky is well regarded in the California market and peers and clients alike recognize his IP litigation practice. His fields of experience include semiconductor, communications, network and computer technologies. He achieved a stunning win for Yahoo! in a jury trial against Bedrock Computer in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, a patent litigation hotspot which many regard as plaintiff friendly. It was the first defense verdict in a patent infringement matter in this division since 2007. He recently represented HTC in ITC and district court patent infringement cases.
Keith Slenkovich is an experienced trial lawyer, who represents technology companies in intellectual property disputes and complex commercial litigation. As lead trial counsel, Mr. Slenkovich has taken more than 20 cases to verdict in state and federal courtrooms throughout the country. His intellectual property experience includes numerous patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark cases, including disputes alleging infringement or misappropriation in the clean tech, telecommunications, semiconductor, software, and manufacturing fields.
AssignmentsCase file for report.docxPage 1 of 2 DOCUM.docx
Assignments/Case file for report.docx
Page
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
XIMPLEWARE CORP., Plaintiff, v.VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.; TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; and AUREA SOFTWARE, INC., Defendants.
No. C 13-05160 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172411
December 6, 2013, Decided
December 6, 2013, Filed
CORE TERMS: discovery, expedited, preliminary injunction, restraining order, temporary, software, license, deposition, declaration, discovery requests, patent infringement, irreparable injury, inclusion, copyright infringement, good cause, irreparable harm, infringement, injunction, injunctive, subpoena, issuance, patent, Lanham Act, ex parte application, declaratory relief, narrowly tailored, overbroad, patch
COUNSEL: [*1] For XimpleWare Corp, Plaintiff: Ansel Jay Halliburton, Christopher Joseph Sargent, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jack Russo, Computerlaw Group LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
For Versata Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Alisa Anne Lipski, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX; Amir Alavi, PRO HAC VICE, AZA, Houston, TX; Benjamin Francis Foster, PRO HAC VICE, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX.
For Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Aurea Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation also known as Aurea, Inc., Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Case Collard, Denver, CO; Gregory Scot Tamkin, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
JUDGES: SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: SUSAN ILLSTON
OPINION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUES FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
On December 4, 2013, the Court held a hearing [*2] on plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, request that the Court order defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and request for expedited discovery. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants argued at the hearing. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's applications for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause, and DENIES plaintiff's request for expedited preliminary discovery.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff XimpleWare Corporation is a California corporation which develops, designs, and licenses software for data processing. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. One of XimpleWare's software products is known as "VTD-XML", an XML or Extensible Markup Language program. Defendant Versata provides software to insurance companies; one of its products is Distribution Channel Management (DCM). Defendant Trilogy Development Group acquired Versata in 2006 and defendant ...
Please readXimpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et A.docx
Please read
Ximpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et Al
, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 172411. I've included the case below.
Be sure to read the case and then brief it using the case brief format found in the tutorials folder under How to Brief a Legal Case. Your assignment submission must use the case brief format which is simply a way to organize your thoughts and it should be 1 page in length with the rationale section being the longest part of the case brief. There is also a tutorial on how to read a legal case.
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
XIMPLEWARE CORP., Plaintiff, v.VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.; TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; and AUREA SOFTWARE, INC., Defendants.
No. C 13-05160 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172411
December 6, 2013, Decided
December 6, 2013, Filed
CORE TERMS:
discovery, expedited, preliminary injunction, restraining order, temporary, software, license, deposition, declaration, discovery requests, patent infringement, irreparable injury, inclusion, copyright infringement, good cause, irreparable harm, infringement, injunction, injunctive, subpoena, issuance, patent, Lanham Act, ex parte application, declaratory relief, narrowly tailored, overbroad, patch
COUNSEL:
[*1]
For XimpleWare Corp, Plaintiff: Ansel Jay Halliburton, Christopher Joseph Sargent, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jack Russo, Computerlaw Group LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
For Versata Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Alisa Anne Lipski, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX; Amir Alavi, PRO HAC VICE, AZA, Houston, TX; Benjamin Francis Foster, PRO HAC VICE, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX.
For Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Aurea Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation also known as Aurea, Inc., Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Case Collard, Denver, CO; Gregory Scot Tamkin, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
JUDGES:
SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY:
SUSAN ILLSTON
OPINION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUES FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
On December 4, 2013, the Court held a hearing
[*2]
on plaintiff's
ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order, request that the Court order defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and request for expedited discovery. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants argued at the hearing. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's applications for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause, and DENIES plaintiff's reque.
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx
1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2016
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL. v.
APPLE INC.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
No. 15–777. Argued October 11, 2016—Decided December 6, 2016
Section 289 of the Patent Act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell
an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable
imitation thereof has been applied and makes an infringer liable to
the patent holder “to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289.
As relevant here, a jury found that various smartphones manufac-
tured by petitioners (collectively, Samsung) infringed design patents
owned by respondent Apple Inc. that covered a rectangular front face
with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen.
Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire profit
from the sale of its infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit af-
firmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that dam-
ages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture
were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. The
court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the com-
ponents of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordi-
nary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture.
Held: In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of
manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the
end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of
that product. Pp. 4–9.
(a) The statutory text resolves the issue here. An “article of manu-
facture,” which is simply a thing made by hand or machine, encom-
passes both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that
product. This reading is consistent with §171(a) of the Patent Act,
which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible
for design patent protection, and which has been understood by the
Patent Office and the courts to permit a design patent that extends to
2 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC.
Syllabus
only a component of a multicomponent product, see, e.g., Ex parte
Adams, 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311; Application of Zahn, 617 F. 2d
261, 268 (CCPA). This reading is also consistent with the Court’s
reading of the term “manufacture” in §101, which makes “any new
and useful . . . manufacture” eligible for utility patent protection. See
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 308. Pp. 4–7.
(b) Because the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough ...
Doctrine of Severability in Law
Discusses the doctrine of severability and its practice in the US, UK, Malaysia, Australia and India in brief.
Similar to Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent (13)
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustion
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustion
AssignmentsCase file for report.docxPage 1 of 2 DOCUM.docx
AssignmentsCase file for report.docxPage 1 of 2 DOCUM.docx
Real time Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidential
Real time Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidential
Please readXimpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et A.docx
Please readXimpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et A.docx
More from Michael Cicero
Law360 - How Duty Of Candor Figures In USPTO AI Ethics Guidance
On April 11, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published its guidance on the use of artificial intelligence-based tools in practice before the USPTO. This article explores the significance of the duty of candor and good faith, which figures prominently in that guidance for both patent and trademark applicants.
Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdf
Order from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dated 03/01/23 denying a motion to dismiss a false advertising claim.
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
In this article, I summarize allegations in a complaint alleging ownership of the word mark "Certified Social Media Strategist" and list trademark principles likely to be considered as the case progresses in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of GA.
Trademark Laws: Georgia
Co-authored this summary of Georgia trademark law, published by the Practical Law Company on May 23, 2013.
Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. Nike
Discusses the January 2013 Supreme Court decision bearing on the issue of when a covenant not to sue can nullify a claim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity. This was a TM case, but its principles are expected to apply to patent cases, as well.
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Discusses the state of the law on this issue prior to the Federal Circuit's decision in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Coach v. Becka
This presentation covers the Coach v. Becka decision entered by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in November 2012.
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Presentation regarding error in Lanham Act as to "registration defense" to dilution actions.
Inequitable Conduct 2010
Discusses 2009-10 legal developments concerning the patent infringement defense of inequitable conduct.
More from Michael Cicero (12)
Law360 - How Duty Of Candor Figures In USPTO AI Ethics Guidance
Law360 - How Duty Of Candor Figures In USPTO AI Ethics Guidance
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting Genes
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting Genes
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. Nike
Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. Nike
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Recently uploaded
Biological Screening of Herbal Drugs in detailed.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptx
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
TESDA TM1 REVIEWER FOR NATIONAL ASSESSMENT WRITTEN AND ORAL QUESTIONS WITH A...
TESDA TM1 REVIEWER FOR NATIONAL ASSESSMENT WRITTEN AND ORAL QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS.
Polish students' mobility in the Czech Republic
Polish students mobility to the Czech Republic within eTwinning project "Medieval adventures with Marco Polo"
The Challenger.pdf DNHS Official Publication
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
How libraries can support authors with open access requirements for UKRI fund...
How libraries can support authors with open access requirements for UKRI funded books
Wednesday 22 May 2024, 14:00-15:00.
Unit 2- Research Aptitude (UGC NET Paper I).pdf
This slide describes the research aptitude of unit 2 in the UGC NET paper I.
"Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of othe...
Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of other biological materials, Ownership and period of protection
Mule 4.6 & Java 17 Upgrade | MuleSoft Mysore Meetup #46
Mule 4.6 & Java 17 Upgrade | MuleSoft Mysore Meetup #46
Event Link:-
https://meetups.mulesoft.com/events/details/mulesoft-mysore-presents-exploring-gemini-ai-and-integration-with-mulesoft/
Agenda
● Java 17 Upgrade Overview
● Why and by when do customers need to upgrade to Java 17?
● Is there any immediate impact to upgrading to Mule Runtime 4.6 and beyond?
● Which MuleSoft products are in scope?
For Upcoming Meetups Join Mysore Meetup Group - https://meetups.mulesoft.com/mysore/
YouTube:- youtube.com/@mulesoftmysore
Mysore WhatsApp group:- https://chat.whatsapp.com/EhqtHtCC75vCAX7gaO842N
Speaker:-
Shubham Chaurasia - https://www.linkedin.com/in/shubhamchaurasia1/
Priya Shaw - https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-shaw
Organizers:-
Shubham Chaurasia - https://www.linkedin.com/in/shubhamchaurasia1/
Giridhar Meka - https://www.linkedin.com/in/giridharmeka
Priya Shaw - https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-shaw
Shyam Raj Prasad-
https://www.linkedin.com/in/shyam-raj-prasad/
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptx
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
678020731-Sumas-y-Restas-Para-Colorear.pdf
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
special B.ed 2nd year old paper_20240531.pdf
Instagram:-
https://instagram.com/special_education_needs_01?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
WhatsApp:-
https://chat.whatsapp.com/JVakNIYlSV94x7bwunO3Dc
YouTube:-
https://youtube.com/@special_education_needs
Teligram :- https://t.me/special_education_needs
Slide Shere :-
https://www.slideshare.net/shabnambano20?utm_campaign=profiletracking&utm_medium=sssite&utm_source=ssslideview
Supporting (UKRI) OA monographs at Salford.pptx
How libraries can support authors with open access requirements for UKRI funded books
Wednesday 22 May 2024, 14:00-15:00.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptx
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
This Presentation in details discusses on Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
Thesis Statement for students diagnonsed withADHD.ppt
Presentation required for the master in Education.
Recently uploaded (20)
TESDA TM1 REVIEWER FOR NATIONAL ASSESSMENT WRITTEN AND ORAL QUESTIONS WITH A...
TESDA TM1 REVIEWER FOR NATIONAL ASSESSMENT WRITTEN AND ORAL QUESTIONS WITH A...
How libraries can support authors with open access requirements for UKRI fund...
How libraries can support authors with open access requirements for UKRI fund...
"Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of othe...
"Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of othe...
Mule 4.6 & Java 17 Upgrade | MuleSoft Mysore Meetup #46
Mule 4.6 & Java 17 Upgrade | MuleSoft Mysore Meetup #46
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptx
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptx
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptx
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptx
Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
Thesis Statement for students diagnonsed withADHD.ppt
Thesis Statement for students diagnonsed withADHD.ppt
Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
- 1. Transocean v. Maersk 610 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010) How an Overseas Offer for Sale can Infringe a US Patent © 2010 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC WCSR Patent Legal Issues Meeting Dec 14, 2010 Nanda Alapati
- 2. Womble Carlyle presentations are intended to provide general information about significant legal developments and should not be construed as legal advice regarding any specific facts and circumstances, nor should they be construed as advertisements for legal services. DISCLAIMER
- 4. USP 6,068,069(Transocean) Multi-Activity Offshore
- 22. THE END