Cooper & Dunham LLP won three patent infringement cases in the past four months in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The cases involved SEB defending a patent on a deep fryer against a Chinese competitor, Playoff defending the invalidity of two sports trading card patents, and Romag Fasteners defending against a patent infringement suit and being awarded attorneys' fees. Cooper & Dunham exclusively practices intellectual property law and has represented clients in the Federal Circuit for over 120 years.
9 Block Buster Initial Patent Damages Awards In The USGreyB
The number of patent cases filed in the US, on average 4500 to 5500 in the last two year, is way more than any other country in the world. Hence, there is no dearth of patent lawsuits in the US where huge damages were awarded to plaintiffs.
Having that in mind, we thought to compile nine initial damages awarded since 1991. Among these nine, eight touched the $1bn mark. Some among these were settled while pending appeal – CMU vs Marvell, some are still under appeal, and some got remanded or reduced – Alcatel Lucent vs Microsoft, for example.
So let’s have a look why judges awarded big initial damages first and how later a defendant decreased the amount.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
Fleet v. Bank of America case from California Court of AppealLegalDocsPro
This Fleet v. Bank of America case was recently decided by a California Court of Appeal. This case was decided by Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on August 25, 2014, on September 23, 2014 the Court granted the request of several parties for publication. The case involved allegations by the Fleets of fraud on the part of Bank of America during the loan modification process.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment entered in the case and reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for fraud as to Bank of America and several other individual defendants, as well as reversing the order sustaining demurrers to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action against Bank of America athough the Court did affirm the order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend against several other defendants including Recon Trust. The Court also affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for accounting without leave to amend. This case is very good news in my opinion as this case may represent a turning point as it is the only published case from California that I am aware of in which an appeals Court appears to be at least considering the possibility that the big banks may be engaging in a pattern of fraud and deceit.
9 Block Buster Initial Patent Damages Awards In The USGreyB
The number of patent cases filed in the US, on average 4500 to 5500 in the last two year, is way more than any other country in the world. Hence, there is no dearth of patent lawsuits in the US where huge damages were awarded to plaintiffs.
Having that in mind, we thought to compile nine initial damages awarded since 1991. Among these nine, eight touched the $1bn mark. Some among these were settled while pending appeal – CMU vs Marvell, some are still under appeal, and some got remanded or reduced – Alcatel Lucent vs Microsoft, for example.
So let’s have a look why judges awarded big initial damages first and how later a defendant decreased the amount.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
Fleet v. Bank of America case from California Court of AppealLegalDocsPro
This Fleet v. Bank of America case was recently decided by a California Court of Appeal. This case was decided by Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on August 25, 2014, on September 23, 2014 the Court granted the request of several parties for publication. The case involved allegations by the Fleets of fraud on the part of Bank of America during the loan modification process.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment entered in the case and reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for fraud as to Bank of America and several other individual defendants, as well as reversing the order sustaining demurrers to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action against Bank of America athough the Court did affirm the order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend against several other defendants including Recon Trust. The Court also affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for accounting without leave to amend. This case is very good news in my opinion as this case may represent a turning point as it is the only published case from California that I am aware of in which an appeals Court appears to be at least considering the possibility that the big banks may be engaging in a pattern of fraud and deceit.
PA Superior Court Decision: Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty CompanyMarcellus Drilling News
In the Northern Forests case, the surface rights owner (Northern Forests) claimed they should also own the subsurface rights due to a legal principal called adverse possession. In reviewing the case, a PA trial court found the original case from 1989 awarding Northern Forests the mineral rights, was in error and the rights revert back to the original rights owners. PA Superior Court agreed and upheld the decision.
PELTON PowerPoint: ABA Cyberspace Institute 2011-01-28erikpelton
"Trademark Strategies for 2012" Presentation to the American Bar Association's Cyberspace Institute in Austin Texas on January 28, 2011. The presentation explores recent changes to the practice of trademark law, and what the future might hold for trademark owners and attorneys who advise them.
Decision by U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd on Force Majeure Case in New Yo...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision issued by Judge David Hurd in a case of landowners from Broome and Tioga Counties in New York State against Chesapeake Energy and Statoilhydro. Chesapeake is attempting to extend leases on property for gas drilling claiming that the moratorium in New York has stopped them from drilling. Landowners claim the leases were signed long before horizontal hydraulic fracturing of shale was done and that Chesapeake could have drilled, conventionally, any time they chose to.
Official Motion to add 200 new plaintiffs to the Armando Montelongo Lawsuit. This outlines how attempts to Arbitrate the case failed due to Montelongo refusing to follow the American Arbitration Association Rules, thus they declined to arbitrate the case and asked he remove their name from clauses in the contract. In addition, new plaintiff's have approached the case with similar details of fraud. See additional file with documentation supporting the case, or get a synopsis at http://www.jeannorton.com/armando-montelongo-rico-doubles/
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Cancellation of Claims by PTO Binding on District Court
Claims Reciting Method Free of an Agent is Invalid Where Patent Does Not Mention Agent
Defendant Did Not Have Proper Notice of Products Accused of Infringement
Get your quality homework help now and stand out.Our professional writers are committed to excellence. We have trained the best scholars in different fields of study.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/ and place your order at affordable price done within set deadlines.We always have someone online ready to answer all your queries and take your requests.
Supporting documentation for the Motion to add 200 new plaintiffs to the Armando Montelongo Lawsuit. This outlines how attempts to Arbitrate the case failed due to Montelongo refusing to follow the American Arbitration Association Rules, thus they declined to arbitrate the case and asked he remove their name from clauses in the contract. In addition, new plaintiff's have approached the case with similar details of fraud. A synopsis of the entire suit is at http://www.jeannorton.com/armando-montelongo-rico-doubles/
San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan loses a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order on the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As the court record demonstrates the basis for the motion was improper and the law did not support it.
PA Superior Court Decision: Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty CompanyMarcellus Drilling News
In the Northern Forests case, the surface rights owner (Northern Forests) claimed they should also own the subsurface rights due to a legal principal called adverse possession. In reviewing the case, a PA trial court found the original case from 1989 awarding Northern Forests the mineral rights, was in error and the rights revert back to the original rights owners. PA Superior Court agreed and upheld the decision.
PELTON PowerPoint: ABA Cyberspace Institute 2011-01-28erikpelton
"Trademark Strategies for 2012" Presentation to the American Bar Association's Cyberspace Institute in Austin Texas on January 28, 2011. The presentation explores recent changes to the practice of trademark law, and what the future might hold for trademark owners and attorneys who advise them.
Decision by U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd on Force Majeure Case in New Yo...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision issued by Judge David Hurd in a case of landowners from Broome and Tioga Counties in New York State against Chesapeake Energy and Statoilhydro. Chesapeake is attempting to extend leases on property for gas drilling claiming that the moratorium in New York has stopped them from drilling. Landowners claim the leases were signed long before horizontal hydraulic fracturing of shale was done and that Chesapeake could have drilled, conventionally, any time they chose to.
Official Motion to add 200 new plaintiffs to the Armando Montelongo Lawsuit. This outlines how attempts to Arbitrate the case failed due to Montelongo refusing to follow the American Arbitration Association Rules, thus they declined to arbitrate the case and asked he remove their name from clauses in the contract. In addition, new plaintiff's have approached the case with similar details of fraud. See additional file with documentation supporting the case, or get a synopsis at http://www.jeannorton.com/armando-montelongo-rico-doubles/
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Cancellation of Claims by PTO Binding on District Court
Claims Reciting Method Free of an Agent is Invalid Where Patent Does Not Mention Agent
Defendant Did Not Have Proper Notice of Products Accused of Infringement
Get your quality homework help now and stand out.Our professional writers are committed to excellence. We have trained the best scholars in different fields of study.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/ and place your order at affordable price done within set deadlines.We always have someone online ready to answer all your queries and take your requests.
Supporting documentation for the Motion to add 200 new plaintiffs to the Armando Montelongo Lawsuit. This outlines how attempts to Arbitrate the case failed due to Montelongo refusing to follow the American Arbitration Association Rules, thus they declined to arbitrate the case and asked he remove their name from clauses in the contract. In addition, new plaintiff's have approached the case with similar details of fraud. A synopsis of the entire suit is at http://www.jeannorton.com/armando-montelongo-rico-doubles/
San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan loses a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order on the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As the court record demonstrates the basis for the motion was improper and the law did not support it.
1. Cooper & Dunham Scores Hat-Trick in Federal Circuit Court of Appeals<br />Lawyers at New York's Cooper & Dunham LLP have won three patent infringement cases in the past four months in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington.<br />In February 2010, SEB, a French home appliance manufacturer, successfully maintained a Judgment awarding more than $5 million in damages against Pentalpha, a Chinese competitor. A jury found that Pentalpha infringed SEB's patent on a deep fryer. The Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing in May. SEB was represented at the trial and on appeal by Cooper & Dunham lawyers Norman Zivin, Wendy Miller and Gregory Carbo.<br />In March, Playoff, a sports trading card creator, successfully defended a grant of summary judgment in its favor holding two patents owned by Media Technologies on memorabilia cards to be invalid for obviousness. A petition for rehearing was denied by the Court of Appeals in May. Playoff was represented in the District Court and in the Federal Circuit by Cooper & Dunham's Norman Zivin, Eric Kirsch and Tonia Sayour.<br /> <br />In June, the Federal Circuit upheld a Judgment and an award of attorneys' fees in favor of magnetic snap maker Romag Fasteners for defending a patent infringement case brought by Advanced Magnetic Closures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s holding after trial that Advanced's patent on a magnetic snap fastener was unenforceable for inequitable conduct and that Advanced had engaged in litigation misconduct. Romag was represented at the trial and on appeal by Cooper & Dunham's Norman Zivin, Wendy Miller and Tonia Sayour.<br />Citations to these three Federal Circuit decisions are:<br />SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010);<br />Media Technologies Licensing, LLC v. Playoff Corp., 596 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and<br />Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., 2010 WL 2331169 (C.A.Fed. (N.Y.)).<br />Cooper & Dunham LLP was established in 1887. The firm exclusively practices intellectual property law. <br />