Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Damages for Extraterritorial Infringement of U.S. Patents
Our phones, computers, cars, even our internet-connected refrigerators — it is unlikely that any of these, or any of the other electronic devices and appliances we use, are made entirely in the United States. Nor are they made from components that are made entirely in the U.S.
Even if the product is sold by a U.S. company, it is likely that foreign subsidiaries are performing many of the functions of that U.S. company. Indeed, it is easier than ever before for multinational companies to delegate specific functions of their business to specific parts of the globe. For example, foreign subsidiaries typically purchase components used in end-products from foreign vendors. And then virtually all manufacturing of the components, as well as the assembly of the devices, happens outside the U.S., either by other subsidiaries or by contract manufacturers. But much of the design and marketing activity for these devices occurs in the U.S. As does decision-making about which vendor's component to use and what price to pay for that component, such as a computer chip. These decisions about which components to incorporate into a product are significant, since those components likely will be used for all products, regardless of where in the world these products are sold.
This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.