PresentedJapanCommitteeofAIPLAAIPLAMid-Winter.pptVIP

下载本文档

4
0
约1.43万字
约 17页
2016-12-13 发布于天津
举报
版权申诉

PresentedJapanCommitteeofAIPLAAIPLAMid-Winter.ppt

1、本文档共17页，可阅读全部内容。
2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

? AIPLA 2008 ? AIPLA 2008 ? AIPLA 2008 ? AIPLA 2008 ? AIPLA 2008 Presented: Japan Committee of AIPLA AIPLA Mid-Winter Conference January 22-23, 2012 Las Vegas, Nevada Hung H. Bui, Esq. Bui Garcia-Zamor Washington D.C. Recent Federal Court Decisions Re:PATENT DAMAGES & IMPLICATIONS TO PRACTITIONERS Agenda Patent Damages - 35 U.S.C. §284 Y2009-Y2010: Evolution in Patent Damages Law Recent Federal Court Cases re: Patent Damages Uniloc USA, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2010-105 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2011) Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 1-06 CV 05377 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2011) Implications to Practitioners ? AIPLA 2012 * Patent Damages 35 U.S.C. §284 provides “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer” Patent damages are calculated either as: (1) LOST PROFITS or (2) A REASONABLE ROYALTY ? the amount determined on the basis of a “hypothetical negotiation” between the parties at the time of infringement using the 15 factors outlined in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified and aff’d, 446 F2d 295 (2d Circ 1971), cert denied, 404 U.S. 870, 92 S.Ct. 105 (1971) ? AIPLA 2012 * Patent Damages Expert testimony is used as an aid to calculate patent damages or “reasonable royalty” under the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 However, expert testimony must be based on a firm scientific or technical foundation; see the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Rule 702 in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 589 (1993) Issues regarding patent damages: “Georgia-Pacific” 15 factors are difficult to apply consistently Lack of guidance Experts may apply these factors with unlimited discretion Damage rulings are unpredictable and frequently excessive ? AIPLA 2012 * Y2009-Y2010: Evolution in Patent Damages Law In response to failed efforts to reform patent damages in Patent Reform Act of 2005, 2007 and 2010