This document summarizes a presentation on recent trends in cardiovascular IP litigation. It discusses increasing patent litigation and PTAB challenges in this field. Recent high-profile lawsuits regarding heart valves and catheters are summarized. There are also trends of increased §101 challenges to patent eligibility of medical device patents and seeking damages for foreign sales under §271(f). The presentation covers litigation statistics, outcomes at the PTAB, recent lawsuits, and transactional matters.
Attorneys Dan Altman, Vlad Teplitskiy, and Marko Zoretic address patents, trade secrets and trademarks with MAPLE co-founders Stephen Armstrong and Robert Kelle.
Knobbe Martens Partner Tom Cowan, to learn strategies for protecting your company’s IP on a reduced budget.
Shutdown orders due to the COVID-19 virus pandemic have created economic disruption, causing companies to scale back on intellectual property (IP) expense. This webinar covers suggestions for protecting IP on a reduced or deferred budget. Learn different techniques for timing the expenses incurred with IP protection while establishing or maintaining priority dates. The strategies presented may provide attendees with a competitive edge over those sitting on the IP sidelines during the pandemic
CardiAQ sued Neovasc for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and correction of inventorship regarding Neovasc's development of a competing transcatheter mitral valve implant (TMVI) device called Tiara. A jury found that Neovasc misappropriated CardiAQ's trade secrets and awarded $70 million in damages, which was later enhanced to $112 million with interest. This case demonstrated the importance of non-disclosure agreements and protecting confidential information when collaborating with or acquiring other companies developing similar medical technologies.
This document summarizes hot topics in IP enforcement at the International Trade Commission (ITC). It discusses the ITC process and comparisons to district courts. Key topics covered include importation requirements, severance of investigations, proving domestic industry, the Early Disposition Program, public interest factors, intersections with PTAB proceedings, and non-patent claims like unfair competition that can be brought at the ITC. Recent case examples are provided for many of these procedural and legal issues in ITC Section 337 investigations.
This document summarizes a presentation on recent patent law updates and trends for medical device companies. It discusses Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, including what they are, filing trends, and changes under the new Director of the Patent Office. It also summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the eligibility of temperature measurement patents and trends of decreased district court litigation due to IPRs. Finally, it discusses the importance of intellectual property for medical device companies and strategies for building a strong patent portfolio.
This document provides an analysis of Honeywell's microbolometer patent portfolio. It includes information on the technology overview, market forecast, intellectual property overview including statistics on patent publications, granted patents and applications by country and over time, main technical issues addressed, inventors, most cited patent families, and competitive intellectual property landscape. The analysis also discusses Honeywell's key patents, strengths and weaknesses, and provides conclusions on Honeywell's leadership position in microbolometer technology.
Knobbe Martens co-hosted a 2-hour seminar in Orange County on Protecting Your Intellectual Property with a distinguished panel of global patent practitioners.
The document discusses various forms of intellectual property protection including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Patents provide the strongest protection by giving owners the right to stop others from using their invention, but require public disclosure of how to practice the invention. Copyright and trademark protection have more limited scopes. Trade secrets do not require disclosure but can be lost if the secret becomes public. The document provides examples of intellectual property issues that commonly arise for biotech inventions and businesses.
Attorneys Dan Altman, Vlad Teplitskiy, and Marko Zoretic address patents, trade secrets and trademarks with MAPLE co-founders Stephen Armstrong and Robert Kelle.
Knobbe Martens Partner Tom Cowan, to learn strategies for protecting your company’s IP on a reduced budget.
Shutdown orders due to the COVID-19 virus pandemic have created economic disruption, causing companies to scale back on intellectual property (IP) expense. This webinar covers suggestions for protecting IP on a reduced or deferred budget. Learn different techniques for timing the expenses incurred with IP protection while establishing or maintaining priority dates. The strategies presented may provide attendees with a competitive edge over those sitting on the IP sidelines during the pandemic
CardiAQ sued Neovasc for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and correction of inventorship regarding Neovasc's development of a competing transcatheter mitral valve implant (TMVI) device called Tiara. A jury found that Neovasc misappropriated CardiAQ's trade secrets and awarded $70 million in damages, which was later enhanced to $112 million with interest. This case demonstrated the importance of non-disclosure agreements and protecting confidential information when collaborating with or acquiring other companies developing similar medical technologies.
This document summarizes hot topics in IP enforcement at the International Trade Commission (ITC). It discusses the ITC process and comparisons to district courts. Key topics covered include importation requirements, severance of investigations, proving domestic industry, the Early Disposition Program, public interest factors, intersections with PTAB proceedings, and non-patent claims like unfair competition that can be brought at the ITC. Recent case examples are provided for many of these procedural and legal issues in ITC Section 337 investigations.
This document summarizes a presentation on recent patent law updates and trends for medical device companies. It discusses Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, including what they are, filing trends, and changes under the new Director of the Patent Office. It also summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the eligibility of temperature measurement patents and trends of decreased district court litigation due to IPRs. Finally, it discusses the importance of intellectual property for medical device companies and strategies for building a strong patent portfolio.
This document provides an analysis of Honeywell's microbolometer patent portfolio. It includes information on the technology overview, market forecast, intellectual property overview including statistics on patent publications, granted patents and applications by country and over time, main technical issues addressed, inventors, most cited patent families, and competitive intellectual property landscape. The analysis also discusses Honeywell's key patents, strengths and weaknesses, and provides conclusions on Honeywell's leadership position in microbolometer technology.
Knobbe Martens co-hosted a 2-hour seminar in Orange County on Protecting Your Intellectual Property with a distinguished panel of global patent practitioners.
The document discusses various forms of intellectual property protection including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Patents provide the strongest protection by giving owners the right to stop others from using their invention, but require public disclosure of how to practice the invention. Copyright and trademark protection have more limited scopes. Trade secrets do not require disclosure but can be lost if the secret becomes public. The document provides examples of intellectual property issues that commonly arise for biotech inventions and businesses.
Attorneys Sheila Swaroop and Jonathan Bachand hosted a webinar presenting Intellectual Property Enforcement at the International Trade Commission Confirmation.
Methods to improve Freedom to Operate analysisDauverC
This document discusses improving freedom to operate (FTO) analysis through comprehensive risk assessment and targeted patent searching. It provides an overview of patent filing trends, litigation statistics in key regions like the US and Europe, and a business case study on conducting an FTO analysis for a proposed fuel tank product. New semantic search technologies available in tools like PatentOptimizer can help enable more precise and recall patent searches to better inform FTO evaluations.
Group III nitride semiconductors are recognized as having great potential for short wave length emission (LEDs, LDs, UV detectors) and high-temperature electronics devices. The field of III-N semiconductors has shown an intensive patenting activity since early 1990s, with a substantial increase during the past decade. Today, there are more than 27,000 patent families filed all over the world. The most active companies are Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung, Sumitomo and Hitachi. The patents related to LED technology account for more than 40% of filings, followed by those related to GaN substrates (5%) and RF & Advanced Electronics (<5%).
More than 1,570 new patent families were published between early April 2012 and late March 2013. They were filed by about 350 patent applicants mainly located in Japan, Korea, USA and China. The main patent applicants are Sumitomo, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp and Mitsubishi which represent together almost 25% of the patents published the last 12 months. The academic organisms account for almost 15% of new patent filings and they are mainly located in China. The data set was segmented by type of application (Substrates, Epi-wafers, LED & Laser, Power Devices, RF & Advanced Electronics, Photovoltaics, Sensors-Detectors-MEMS). About 45% of new patent families published the last 12 months are related to LED technology.
They were mainly filed by Toshiba, LG and Samsung, while Chinese companies are increasing their patent activity (Tongfang, Sanan Optoelectronics). The patents claiming an invention related to III-N Substrates and Power Devices represent 20% and 14% of new filings respectively. The patents dedicated to Substrate technology were mainly filed by Sumitomo, Hitachi and Mitsubishi, while University of California and Soitec filed 15 and 8 new patents respectively. The patents dedicated to Power Devices were mainly filed by Advanced Power Device Research Association, Samsung and Sumitomo and the patent filings remain dominated by Japanese companies. Numerous patent applications published this year are offered for sale or for license. This year, the most relevant offers are the ones from the University of California (e.g. Ammonothermal growth technique, CAVET for High Power Application, Defect reduction of semi-polar III-N, GaN substrates, III-N tandem solar cells .
Case Study: Freedom to Operate Analysis in the Field of Medical Devices - BDCimec.archive
A Chinese medical supplies company asked BDC to evaluate whether it could sell four medical product lines in Europe without infringing existing patents. BDC identified over 1,000 relevant patents, analyzed 50 in depth, and found 11 that might be infringed if the products were sold in certain European countries. However, two critical patents would soon expire, allowing one product line to be commercialized. Only two applications covered another line. The company and BDC then developed strategies to design around the seven remaining patents and applications of concern. This analysis provided a basis for commercializing the products in Europe without major patent risk.
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...Patterson Thuente IP
Good Application Practice.
Good Patent Claiming.
Claims.
Avoiding Contributory/Indirect Infringement.
US Patent Reform 2011.
FTFG.
First-to-Publish.
Introducing a Whole Gaggle of PIPs.
Coming Soon: Lots More Rules!
At a recent in-house CLE event, John Sganga, Partner and the firm's Litigation Practice Group Chair, presented an intellectual property year in review discussing important cases throughout 2015.
1. The document provides an overview of intellectual property strategies for diagnostics, including a brief review of patent basics, the scope of patent protection for diagnostics, common types of claims, considerations for support and examination procedures, and enforcement and exploitation of patents.
2. Key topics covered include what can be patented in diagnostics, such as inventions, selection patents, subject matter restrictions, medical methods, higher life forms and biotechnological inventions. Common claim types for diagnostics like products, methods, machines and uses are described through examples.
3. Support for patent applications requires meeting criteria like novelty, inventiveness, utility and enablement, with enablement ensuring sufficient disclosure to support the claim scope without undue experiment
Patent landscaping report wearable bio sensor on wrist-en_20160407Ray Chu
The document is a patent landscape report on wrist-worn wearable biosensor technologies. It provides an overview of trends in wearable technology development and patents in the field of wearable physiological signal detection. It analyzes global and regional patent filing trends over the past 20 years, identifies top patent applicants, and examines major technologies for detecting metrics like heart rate, blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and body composition. It also profiles the patent portfolios of leading industry players from countries like the US, Europe, Japan, China and Taiwan. The report aims to help assess patent infringement risks and develop strategic plans for companies working in this area.
Teva's Copaxone faced challenges from generic drug companies before its patents expired. In the US, Teva sued Sandoz and Mylan to block their generic versions, resulting in complex litigation that ultimately invalidated Teva's patents. In India, Teva sued Natco but the Delhi High Court dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. As generics prepared to enter the market, Teva developed a new long-acting Copaxone formulation and obtained additional patents to extend its market exclusivity. This allowed Teva to switch most patients to the new version before generics could significantly impact sales of the original drug. The case demonstrates Teva's strategic efforts to maximize revenue from Copaxone through patent litigation and new product development
The UK Supreme Court ruled on several appeals relating to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). The Court found that UK courts have jurisdiction to grant injunctions for infringement of UK patents, determine global FRAND licensing terms as a condition to avoid injunctions, and that Birss J's methodology was consistent with EU competition law and industry practice. While injunctions are usually appropriate, the rulings could cause implementers to leave the UK market rather than accept worldwide FRAND licenses set by UK courts.
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsAlexandraPuYang
Alexandra Yang of Fangda Partners examines the differences and similarities between IPRs in the U.S. and invalidation proceedings before the CNIPA to give U.S. practitioners and clients a clear picture of the patent invalidation proceedings in China.
KEY FEATURES OF THE REPORT
• IP trends including time evolutions and countries of patent filings
• Current legal status of patents
• Ranking of main patent applicants
• Joint developments and IP collaboration network of main patent applicants
• Key patents and granted patents near expiration
• Relative strength of main companies’ IP portfolios
• Matrix showing patent applicants and their patented technologies
• Segmentation of patents by
- Technology (primary and secondary batteries w/o lithium)
- Design (micro-batteries, solid thin film, flexible, 3D …)
- Components/materials (anode, cathode, electrolyte, barrier layer ...)
- Manufacturing method (CVD, ALD, PVD, sputtering, electrodeposition …)
- Claimed invention (method, product, apparatus)
• Microbattery IP profiles of 10 major companies, with key patents, technological issues, partnerships, IP strength, IP strategy and latest market news
• Excel database with all patents analyzed in the report (3000+ patents), including technology segmentation
The document summarizes recent developments in patent law from Supreme Court cases and post-grant proceedings that impact medical device companies. Key points include:
1) The Supreme Court has made it more difficult to obtain and enforce patents by raising the bar for what constitutes patentable subject matter and claim clarity, and making it easier to recover attorney's fees.
2) Recent litigation and settlements between medical device companies highlight the ongoing battles over patents for pioneering heart valve technologies.
3) In the two years since being established, inter partes reviews have led to about 60% of challenged claims being found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The document discusses patent opposition in India. It defines patent opposition as a process where third parties can oppose the grant of a patent during specified time periods. There are two types of opposition: pre-grant opposition, where opposition can be filed after publication but before grant; and post-grant opposition, where opposition can be filed within one year of the patent being granted. The grounds for opposition include lack of novelty, prior claims, obviousness, insufficient disclosure, and non-compliance with requirements. The key differences between pre-grant and post-grant opposition are also outlined.
This document discusses developing a minimum viable patent strategy for startups. It recommends that before a seed round, startups should file a provisional patent application and conduct a preliminary freedom-to-operate analysis of main competitors. Before a Series A round, startups should file a full patent application and conduct a broader freedom-to-operate analysis of relevant patents. The document also addresses common misunderstandings about patentability and infringement, and how to choose a patent attorney.
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...Rahul Dev
How to calculate damages during patent infringement?
In case of patent infringement, there are two types of damages: (a) Loss Profits, and (b) Reasonable Royalty. Loss profits imply additional profits that the patent owner would have made if there had been no patent infringement. Reasonably royalty on the other hand implies minimum damages that a patent owner can receive pertaining to a reasonable amount that someone would have agreed to pay to the patent owner for using the patented technology and patent owner would have accepted.
How to calculate damages during patent infringement?
In case of patent infringement, there are two types of damages: (a) Loss Profits, and (b) Reasonable Royalty. Loss profits imply additional profits that the patent owner would have made if there had been no patent infringement. Reasonably royalty on the other hand implies minimum damages that a patent owner can receive pertaining to a reasonable amount that someone would have agreed to pay to the patent owner for using the patented technology and patent owner would have accepted.
Provisions related to Patent Damages as per US Patent Law
In accordance with the provisions of US patent laws (35 U.S. Code § 284 – Damages), section 284 states that a patentee is entitled to damages adequate to compensate for any infringement and that compensation cannot be less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.
How to determine “reasonable royalty” damages?
In past, various federal courts in US have clarified that in case patentee is unable to prove actual damages (i.e. loss profits), there exists no single methodology to determine reasonable royalty damages.
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
Technical standard across various industries are defined by standards organizations (SDOs) that can be patented by private companies to protect their research and development activities. Such patents relating to standardized technology may be used by patent owners to pressurize the market and create monopoly to prevent competition. Accordingly, the SDOs require their participants do disclose patents covering standards prior to adoption. SDOs further require the patent owners to license such patents on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) terms.
However, FRAND terms have been core of various patent infringement lawsuits, specifically in the smartphone industry, wherein the industry standard covers core features of any smartphone, such as, for example, wireless connectivity (WiFi), Bluetooth, GPS (location capabilities), and the like.
WiFi Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Attorneys Sheila Swaroop and Jonathan Bachand hosted a webinar presenting Intellectual Property Enforcement at the International Trade Commission Confirmation.
Methods to improve Freedom to Operate analysisDauverC
This document discusses improving freedom to operate (FTO) analysis through comprehensive risk assessment and targeted patent searching. It provides an overview of patent filing trends, litigation statistics in key regions like the US and Europe, and a business case study on conducting an FTO analysis for a proposed fuel tank product. New semantic search technologies available in tools like PatentOptimizer can help enable more precise and recall patent searches to better inform FTO evaluations.
Group III nitride semiconductors are recognized as having great potential for short wave length emission (LEDs, LDs, UV detectors) and high-temperature electronics devices. The field of III-N semiconductors has shown an intensive patenting activity since early 1990s, with a substantial increase during the past decade. Today, there are more than 27,000 patent families filed all over the world. The most active companies are Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung, Sumitomo and Hitachi. The patents related to LED technology account for more than 40% of filings, followed by those related to GaN substrates (5%) and RF & Advanced Electronics (<5%).
More than 1,570 new patent families were published between early April 2012 and late March 2013. They were filed by about 350 patent applicants mainly located in Japan, Korea, USA and China. The main patent applicants are Sumitomo, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp and Mitsubishi which represent together almost 25% of the patents published the last 12 months. The academic organisms account for almost 15% of new patent filings and they are mainly located in China. The data set was segmented by type of application (Substrates, Epi-wafers, LED & Laser, Power Devices, RF & Advanced Electronics, Photovoltaics, Sensors-Detectors-MEMS). About 45% of new patent families published the last 12 months are related to LED technology.
They were mainly filed by Toshiba, LG and Samsung, while Chinese companies are increasing their patent activity (Tongfang, Sanan Optoelectronics). The patents claiming an invention related to III-N Substrates and Power Devices represent 20% and 14% of new filings respectively. The patents dedicated to Substrate technology were mainly filed by Sumitomo, Hitachi and Mitsubishi, while University of California and Soitec filed 15 and 8 new patents respectively. The patents dedicated to Power Devices were mainly filed by Advanced Power Device Research Association, Samsung and Sumitomo and the patent filings remain dominated by Japanese companies. Numerous patent applications published this year are offered for sale or for license. This year, the most relevant offers are the ones from the University of California (e.g. Ammonothermal growth technique, CAVET for High Power Application, Defect reduction of semi-polar III-N, GaN substrates, III-N tandem solar cells .
Case Study: Freedom to Operate Analysis in the Field of Medical Devices - BDCimec.archive
A Chinese medical supplies company asked BDC to evaluate whether it could sell four medical product lines in Europe without infringing existing patents. BDC identified over 1,000 relevant patents, analyzed 50 in depth, and found 11 that might be infringed if the products were sold in certain European countries. However, two critical patents would soon expire, allowing one product line to be commercialized. Only two applications covered another line. The company and BDC then developed strategies to design around the seven remaining patents and applications of concern. This analysis provided a basis for commercializing the products in Europe without major patent risk.
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...Patterson Thuente IP
Good Application Practice.
Good Patent Claiming.
Claims.
Avoiding Contributory/Indirect Infringement.
US Patent Reform 2011.
FTFG.
First-to-Publish.
Introducing a Whole Gaggle of PIPs.
Coming Soon: Lots More Rules!
At a recent in-house CLE event, John Sganga, Partner and the firm's Litigation Practice Group Chair, presented an intellectual property year in review discussing important cases throughout 2015.
1. The document provides an overview of intellectual property strategies for diagnostics, including a brief review of patent basics, the scope of patent protection for diagnostics, common types of claims, considerations for support and examination procedures, and enforcement and exploitation of patents.
2. Key topics covered include what can be patented in diagnostics, such as inventions, selection patents, subject matter restrictions, medical methods, higher life forms and biotechnological inventions. Common claim types for diagnostics like products, methods, machines and uses are described through examples.
3. Support for patent applications requires meeting criteria like novelty, inventiveness, utility and enablement, with enablement ensuring sufficient disclosure to support the claim scope without undue experiment
Patent landscaping report wearable bio sensor on wrist-en_20160407Ray Chu
The document is a patent landscape report on wrist-worn wearable biosensor technologies. It provides an overview of trends in wearable technology development and patents in the field of wearable physiological signal detection. It analyzes global and regional patent filing trends over the past 20 years, identifies top patent applicants, and examines major technologies for detecting metrics like heart rate, blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and body composition. It also profiles the patent portfolios of leading industry players from countries like the US, Europe, Japan, China and Taiwan. The report aims to help assess patent infringement risks and develop strategic plans for companies working in this area.
Teva's Copaxone faced challenges from generic drug companies before its patents expired. In the US, Teva sued Sandoz and Mylan to block their generic versions, resulting in complex litigation that ultimately invalidated Teva's patents. In India, Teva sued Natco but the Delhi High Court dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. As generics prepared to enter the market, Teva developed a new long-acting Copaxone formulation and obtained additional patents to extend its market exclusivity. This allowed Teva to switch most patients to the new version before generics could significantly impact sales of the original drug. The case demonstrates Teva's strategic efforts to maximize revenue from Copaxone through patent litigation and new product development
The UK Supreme Court ruled on several appeals relating to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). The Court found that UK courts have jurisdiction to grant injunctions for infringement of UK patents, determine global FRAND licensing terms as a condition to avoid injunctions, and that Birss J's methodology was consistent with EU competition law and industry practice. While injunctions are usually appropriate, the rulings could cause implementers to leave the UK market rather than accept worldwide FRAND licenses set by UK courts.
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsAlexandraPuYang
Alexandra Yang of Fangda Partners examines the differences and similarities between IPRs in the U.S. and invalidation proceedings before the CNIPA to give U.S. practitioners and clients a clear picture of the patent invalidation proceedings in China.
KEY FEATURES OF THE REPORT
• IP trends including time evolutions and countries of patent filings
• Current legal status of patents
• Ranking of main patent applicants
• Joint developments and IP collaboration network of main patent applicants
• Key patents and granted patents near expiration
• Relative strength of main companies’ IP portfolios
• Matrix showing patent applicants and their patented technologies
• Segmentation of patents by
- Technology (primary and secondary batteries w/o lithium)
- Design (micro-batteries, solid thin film, flexible, 3D …)
- Components/materials (anode, cathode, electrolyte, barrier layer ...)
- Manufacturing method (CVD, ALD, PVD, sputtering, electrodeposition …)
- Claimed invention (method, product, apparatus)
• Microbattery IP profiles of 10 major companies, with key patents, technological issues, partnerships, IP strength, IP strategy and latest market news
• Excel database with all patents analyzed in the report (3000+ patents), including technology segmentation
The document summarizes recent developments in patent law from Supreme Court cases and post-grant proceedings that impact medical device companies. Key points include:
1) The Supreme Court has made it more difficult to obtain and enforce patents by raising the bar for what constitutes patentable subject matter and claim clarity, and making it easier to recover attorney's fees.
2) Recent litigation and settlements between medical device companies highlight the ongoing battles over patents for pioneering heart valve technologies.
3) In the two years since being established, inter partes reviews have led to about 60% of challenged claims being found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The document discusses patent opposition in India. It defines patent opposition as a process where third parties can oppose the grant of a patent during specified time periods. There are two types of opposition: pre-grant opposition, where opposition can be filed after publication but before grant; and post-grant opposition, where opposition can be filed within one year of the patent being granted. The grounds for opposition include lack of novelty, prior claims, obviousness, insufficient disclosure, and non-compliance with requirements. The key differences between pre-grant and post-grant opposition are also outlined.
This document discusses developing a minimum viable patent strategy for startups. It recommends that before a seed round, startups should file a provisional patent application and conduct a preliminary freedom-to-operate analysis of main competitors. Before a Series A round, startups should file a full patent application and conduct a broader freedom-to-operate analysis of relevant patents. The document also addresses common misunderstandings about patentability and infringement, and how to choose a patent attorney.
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...Rahul Dev
How to calculate damages during patent infringement?
In case of patent infringement, there are two types of damages: (a) Loss Profits, and (b) Reasonable Royalty. Loss profits imply additional profits that the patent owner would have made if there had been no patent infringement. Reasonably royalty on the other hand implies minimum damages that a patent owner can receive pertaining to a reasonable amount that someone would have agreed to pay to the patent owner for using the patented technology and patent owner would have accepted.
How to calculate damages during patent infringement?
In case of patent infringement, there are two types of damages: (a) Loss Profits, and (b) Reasonable Royalty. Loss profits imply additional profits that the patent owner would have made if there had been no patent infringement. Reasonably royalty on the other hand implies minimum damages that a patent owner can receive pertaining to a reasonable amount that someone would have agreed to pay to the patent owner for using the patented technology and patent owner would have accepted.
Provisions related to Patent Damages as per US Patent Law
In accordance with the provisions of US patent laws (35 U.S. Code § 284 – Damages), section 284 states that a patentee is entitled to damages adequate to compensate for any infringement and that compensation cannot be less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.
How to determine “reasonable royalty” damages?
In past, various federal courts in US have clarified that in case patentee is unable to prove actual damages (i.e. loss profits), there exists no single methodology to determine reasonable royalty damages.
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
Technical standard across various industries are defined by standards organizations (SDOs) that can be patented by private companies to protect their research and development activities. Such patents relating to standardized technology may be used by patent owners to pressurize the market and create monopoly to prevent competition. Accordingly, the SDOs require their participants do disclose patents covering standards prior to adoption. SDOs further require the patent owners to license such patents on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) terms.
However, FRAND terms have been core of various patent infringement lawsuits, specifically in the smartphone industry, wherein the industry standard covers core features of any smartphone, such as, for example, wireless connectivity (WiFi), Bluetooth, GPS (location capabilities), and the like.
WiFi Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
Similar to Cardiovascular ip landscape webinar (20)
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Partners Susan Natland and Jessica Sganga discussed potential trademark and copyright issues in the emerging metaverse, including the surge in popularity of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and how they may affect intellectual property protections. Get up-to-speed on the “hot” cases in this evolving area and get practical tips on how best to protect your intellectual property from infringement in this virtual space.
Speakers: Susan Natland, Jessica Sganga
Knobbe partners Jeff Van Hoosear (OC) Jason Jardine (SD) and associate Julia Hanson (SD) recently gave a presentation at San Diego Fashion week on intellectual property for designers and artists. The presentation explored what IP is, why it is important to designers, top 5 misconceptions, how to get a copyright, how to get a trademark and how to get a design patent.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
This document discusses strategic considerations for intellectual property risk mitigation and responding to patent infringement threats and assertions. It provides an overview of types of patent infringement, including literal infringement which occurs when each element of a patented claim is identical in an allegedly infringing device or process. It also discusses doctrine of equivalents, contributory infringement, and induced infringement. The document outlines appropriate and limited defenses to patent infringement and notes statutes related to willfulness and enhanced damages. Factors courts consider for determining willfulness are also provided.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Jason Gersting, Ph.D. moderated a panel of his peers in a discussion about learning how to identify the waves in current written description and enablement law and tips for smoothly riding them to expand, enhance and protect life sciences intellectual property rights. Panelists included Knobbe Martens partners Jessica Achtsam, Eric Furman, Ph.D., and Dan Altman.
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Lozan gave an informative presentation on design patent law in the United States. The partners provided best practices for filing and prosecuting design patents in the U.S. and techniques and strategies for including multiple design embodiments in design patent applications. They also discussed how to identify and protect visual elements in computer-related technologies and how to integrate design patents into a holistic intellectual property strategy.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Lozan
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellman continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic, diving into the best intellectual property portfolios and cost deferrable strategies to maximize intellectual property spend.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellmann
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Teplitskiy gave an informative presentation on strategic considerations for claim drafting electrical and telecommunications Inventions. The partners provided illustrative claim drafting examples and best practices for defining claim scope, as well as claim drafting strategies for avoiding or minimizing unintentional functional claiming.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Teplitskiy
Partners Maria Stout and Paul Stellman kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Maria Stout and Paul Stellmann
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic considerations regarding employment and vendor agreements. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of managing employment and vendor agreements, follow-on agreements, and sample language and practical examples.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
The webinar covered strategic considerations for key terms in employee and vendor agreements regarding intellectual property and restrictive covenants. It discussed defining the scope of work and assignments of ownership for intellectual property created. Restrictive covenants like non-compete clauses, non-solicitation, anti-poaching, and confidentiality were also covered. The presentation addressed terms regarding the duration of the agreements and obligations after termination.
This document discusses advanced claiming strategies for artificial intelligence and machine learning inventions. It provides an overview of machine learning and the minimal requirements for an algorithm to be considered machine learning. It also discusses best practices for drafting patent claims for machine learning inventions, including providing detailed descriptions of the technical underpinnings of the AI technology and step-by-step algorithms. The document gives examples of potential patentable subject matter for machine learning inventions, such as collecting or forming a data set, modifications to algorithms, and using machine learning processed data. It provides sample patent claims related to training a neural network, predicting device failures using state and configuration data, and characterizing user inputs using machine learning.
More from Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law (20)
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.