Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

IP News

By Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Joseph Mercadante
September 02, 2013

Obama Administration Vetoes ITC Ban

On Aug. 3, 2013, the Executive Office of the President disapproved of the U.S. International Trade Commission's Determination in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, Investigation No. 337-TA-794. On June 4, the ITC determined that Apple had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing smartphones and tablet computers that infringe a U.S. Patent owned by Samsung. During the 60-day period for Presidential review, the Administration stated that, because Samsung had committed to license the patent under FRAND terms to a standard setting organization, the exclusion order and cease and desist order would not be approved.


Medical Devices Case Yields Treble Damages in Michigan

On Aug. 7, 2013, a Michigan Federal Judge awarded Stryker Corp. $210 million in treble damages, holding that defendant Zimmer Inc. willfully infringed Stryker's patents for surgical irrigation. Judge Robert J. Jonker held in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc., No. 10-cv-1223 (W.D. Mich.) that Stryker was entitled to treble damages because “Zimmer lost every argument it advanced at claim construction, then lost most of the disputed claims on summary judgment. It lost all of its remaining claims at trial.” Slip Op. at 3. Particularly, he noted that “trial proofs demonstrated that this was not a close case.” Id. Judge Jonker granted each of Stryker's five post-verdict motions, holding that Stryker is entitled to a permanent injunction, supplemental damages that have been accruing since the jury verdict, attorneys' fees because the case is “exceptional” under '285, prejudgment interest, and enhanced damages for willful infringement.


Jeffrey S. Ginsberg is a partner and Joseph Mercadante is an associate in the New York office of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.