Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Dec. 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a damages award of $399 million that Apple won against Samsung in an ongoing design patent dispute. Justice Sotomayor authored the opinion for the unanimous Court, holding that damages for design patent infringement may be based on an “article of manufacture” that is a component part of a commercial product and need not be tied to the entire commercial product as it is sold to the consumer. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777 (Dec. 6, 2016). The ruling promises to carry the Apple v. Samsung saga forward, because significant aspects of the damages calculation are left to the Federal Circuit and further briefing by the parties, including the crucial “test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture” on which damages for a design patent are based. Slip op. at 8.
*May exclude premium content
By Ben Clark
United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
Proving that even the driest of constitutional issues can have significant practical effect, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in United States v. Arthrex. Before the Court was whether administrative judges of the PTAB have been appointed unconstitutionally.
By Bruce M. Wexler, Aaron P. Selikson, Ashley N. Mays-Williams and Susan S. Hwang
The decision appears to take steps to harmonize the prior cases that appropriately were guided by the Wands factors with the cases discussing the “full scope” of enablement that have engendered some confusion in the law.
By Siraj Husain
As intellectual property continues to influence business operations, more companies are considering defensive patent pools as a strategic measure to guard against threats that can stifle innovation and growth for both businesses and industries.
By Kelvin Han
Federal Circuit Wasn’t Chicken to Grant Equitable Intervening Right in Poultry Processing Equipment Case
A dispute between the two titans in the poultry processing equipment market led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to construe the term “protection of investments” in 35 U.S.C. §252.