USA articles related to:
Federal Circuit establishes new rule for proving willful infringement: Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. V. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP - USA -
August 17 2012
In a decision with significant implications for patent cases involving willful infringement, the Federal Circuit recently held that the threshold determination of objective recklessness under the Seagate standard for willful infringement is a question of law to be decided by the trial court and subject to de novo review.
Fed. Cir. holds judge must decide Seagate’s “objective recklessness” prong
- Quarles & Brady LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 28 2012
Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit changed the law regarding willful infringement, arguably making it harder for patentees to prove willfulness and collect enhanced damages.
Federal Ccircuit panel returns to Gore-Tex graft dispute, clarifies willfulness standard for enhanced damages
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 21 2012
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated parts of its February 2012 decision in a long-running patent dispute over a prosthetic vascular graft and remanded the matter for the district court to address the objective prong of the willfulness standard and reconsider its denial of W.L. Gore’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc., No. 2010-1510 (Fed. Cir., decided June 14, 2012).
A reasonable defense to patent infringement? Federal Circuit holds that the judge decides, and that may be good news for accused infringers
- King & Spalding LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 27 2012
On June 14, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again raised the bar for patent holders looking to obtain enhanced damagesup to three times the actual damagesby proving “willful” patent infringement.
The final curtain call? Not quite yet new standard of review for willfulness
- McDermott Will & Emery
- -
- USA
- -
- June 28 2012
In the panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in February 2012, in the case of Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W. L. Gore & Assoc., the panel majority heralded the decision as marking the “final curtain of the saga.”
Federal Circuit passes torch from juries to judges for willful infringement determinations
- Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 25 2012
Just in time for the London 2012 Summer Olympics, the Federal Circuit, in Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., passes the torch from juries to judges on willful infringement determinations in patent litigation.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
- Baker & Hostetler LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 29 2012
The threshold objective prong of the willfulness standard enunciated in Seagate is a question of law based on underlying mixed questions of law and fact and is subject to de novo review.
Vascular graft patent dispute heads to SCOTUS for review of heightened willful infringement standard
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 1 2012
Medical supply manufacturer W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. has filed a petition before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a Federal Circuit ruling remanding to the district court a long-running patent-infringement dispute over a prosthetic vascular graft, with instructions to reconsider its denial of W.L. Gore’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement.
Tell it to the judge, Federal Circuit rules: the judgenot jurydecides threshold issue of willful infringement in patent cases
- Ballard Spahr LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 18 2012
For patent holders, it just got a little harder to prove that an alleged infringer’s conduct was “willful” now that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that one of the key questions must be decided by the judge, not the jury.
A gripping (graft) saga draws to a close
- McDermott Will & Emery
- -
- USA
- -
- February 29 2012
In a bruising patent infringement dispute centered on blood vessel grafts that reaches back over three decades in time (to the presidency of Gerald Ford), a deeply divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, over an eloquent dissent, awarded C. R. Bard almost $400 million in damages at the expense of W. L. Gore and Associates.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc et al v WL Gore & Associates, Inc
- Winston & Strawn LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 26 2012
The objective reasonableness prong of the Seagate standard for willful infringement is a question of law for a judge and subject to de novo review on appeal.
Trial court's new role in willful patent infringement decisions
- Armstrong Teasdale LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 18 2012
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appears to have made it more difficult to prove willful infringement of a patent.
Apple v. Samsung: the District Court issues its final rulings denying motions for new trial and finding no willful infringement; next stop the Federal Circuit
- Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- February 4 2013
In a set of mixed rulings for the parties, the district court denied the parties' motions for new trial, found Samsung did not willfully infringe
Long-running GORE-TEX graft patent dispute fractures Federal Circuit panel
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 1 2012
A divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has upheld a jury verdict of patent validity and willful infringement and affirmed a district court’s decision to enhance the damages verdict, thus upholding an award in excess of $371 million and an additional award of $19 million in costs and attorney’s fees.
Federal Circuit addresses willfulness and the advice of counsel defense
- Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 23 2007
In a recent and unanimous en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed its long-standing rule requiring that an accused patent infringer exercise an affirmative duty of due care to determine whether or not he is infringing to avoid a finding of willful infringement.
New Tools for Arguing Against the Use of Hindsight and Common Sense in Obviousness Rejections
- Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
- -
- Global, USA
- -
- July 16 2012
In a victory for patent applicants and owners, a recent decision by the Federal Circuit re-emphasized the importance of the Graham factors to avoid the ever-present risk of using hindsight when making an obviousness determination, and questioned the all-too-familiar reliance on “common sense” to make obviousness arguments.
Some questions relating to patent remedies in Edwards v. Corevalve
- Briggs and Morgan
- -
- USA
- -
- May 29 2013
Most countries routinely award permanent injunctions to the prevailing patentee. In the U.S., since the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay v
In re Seagate: the Federal Circuit scuttles underwater devices and narrows privilegeimmunity waiver
- Jones Day
- -
- USA
- -
- August 29 2007
The Federal Circuit's recently issued en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2007) overruled the court's previous standard for finding willful infringement, eliminated the previous affirmative duty to exercise due care to avoid infringing activity, and replaced it with a heightened standard of objective recklessness.
In re Seagate Technology, LLC willful infringement and the scope of waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
- Fenwick & West LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 21 2007
On August 20, 2007, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, articulated a new standard for willful infringement: patentees must show at least objective recklessness.
Ongoing royalty same as jury verdict where circumstances had not changed
- Fish & Richardson PC
- -
- USA
- -
- June 20 2012
On April 25, 2012, the Western District of Pennsylvania in University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Case 2:08-cv-01307-AJS, addressed ongoing royalties in a case that has produced several orders on damages issues.
Evidence of copying in a case of direct infringement is relevant only to Seagate’s second prong, as it may show what the accused infringer knew or should have known about the likelihood of its infringement
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 28 2009
In DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Nos. 08-1240, -1253, -1401 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision awarding damages to DePuy Spine, Inc. and Biedermann Motech GmbH (collectively “DePuy”) relating to the sale of Vertex pedicle screws by Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively “Medtronic”).
Federal Circuit lessens the load for patent infringement defendants
- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 23 2007
The Federal Circuit’s August 20, 2007 unanimous en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC has raised the bar to prove willful patent infringement: the patent owner must now prove recklessness by the infringer.
A receding tide for patents? An early assessment of In re Seagate Technology, LLC
- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 28 2007
The recent decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, Miscellaneous Docket No. 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007), is another setback for patentees, who lost several important battles in the United States Supreme Court earlier this year.
Largest patent infringement verdict ever affirmed on appeal
- Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- February 14 2011
Recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed a $290 million verdict against Microsoft Corporation in its long running patent infringement battle with i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc. (collectively, "i4i").
Willfulness redefined: In Re Seagate
- Alston & Bird LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 30 2007
In a recent decision, In re Seagate Tech. LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit redefined willfulness as it relates to patent infringement.
Standard for willful patent infringement heightened to an objective recklessness standard
- Vedder Price PC
- -
- USA
- -
- September 14 2007
On August 20, 2007 the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision redefining willful infringement and further addressing the advice-of-counsel defense in relation to both the attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege.
Federal Circuit establishes new standard for willful patent infringement
- Duane Morris LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 24 2007
On August 20, 2007, in a unanimous en banc opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a new standard for willful patent infringement (which can form the basis for an award of multiple damages).
Last month at the Federal Circuit
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 26 2012
In Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., No. 10-1510 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, ending a long saga between the parties that included an eighteen-year interference and two prior appeals to the Federal Circuit.
Federal Circuit raises the bar to prove willful patent infringement
- Day Pitney LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- September 4 2007
The Federal Circuit, in a recent en banc decision (In re Seagate Technology LLC, __ F.3d __ (Aug. 20, 2007)), overruled the standard for willful infringement set forth in Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.
The read “enhanced damages” standard must be applied separately from the seagate “willful infringement” standard
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 26 2011
In Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., Nos. 09-1564, 10-1004 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2011), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiff Spectralytics, Inc.’s (“Spectralytics”) U.S. Patent No. 5,852,277 (“the ’277 patent”) was valid, that the defendants Cordis Corporation (“Cordis”) and Norman Noble, Inc. (“Noble”) willfully infringed the ’277 patent, and that calculation of damages at a 5 percent royalty rate was valid.
Reweighing evidence in reducing compensatory damages award requires the option of a new trial
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 19 2008
In Minks v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Nos. 07-1490, -1491 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2008), the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s judgment reducing the jury’s damages award without offering the plaintiff the option of a new trial.
Opinion letters remain important even in the wake of Seagate
- Fenwick & West LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 17 2008
Last year’s Seagate decision by the Federal Circuit left some wondering whether there remained any use for opinion letters addressing infringement, validity or enforceability of a patent.
The Federal Circuit changes the rules of willful patent infringement and patent opinions
- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 24 2007
In re Seagate Technology, LLC, F.3d , Misc. Docket No. 830 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2007) sets forth new rules in three important areas related to willful patent infringement. First, the court replaced the "duty of due care" standard for willful patent infringement with a two-part "objective recklessness" standard which will make it more difficult to prove willful infringement.
Last month at the Federal Circuit
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 19 2011
In In re Ricoh Co. Patent Litigation, No. 11-1199 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated-in-part the district court’s award of costs to Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) under 28 U.S.C. 1920 and remanded for further proceedings.
Willfulness allegations post-Seagate - the role of actual notice
- Baker Botts LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 30 2010
Patent infringement lawsuits are often a major concern for defendants, primarily due to the potential for damage awards that are often some of the highest in private litigation, often ranging anywhere from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to consider patent dispute over vascular grafts
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 24 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the petition for review filed by W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. in a dispute over the patent for a prosthetic
Federal Circuit alert Federal Circuit Rules En Banc on Intent Necessary to Establish Inducement Infringement
- Duane Morris LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 29 2007
In a December 13, 2006 decision, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc addressed the question of the level of intent necessary to establish inducement infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b).
Showing harm to exclusive licensee is insufficient for grant of permanent injunction
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- September 25 2008
In Voda v. Cordis Corp., Nos. 07-1297, -1343 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 18, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a permanent injunction as well as claim construction and validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,445,625 (“the ’625 patent”), 6,083,213 (“the ’213 patent”), and 6,475,195 (“the ’195 patent”).
Federal Circuit raises the bar on establishing willful infringement and reinforces attorney-client privilege
- Squire Sanders
- -
- USA
- -
- August 24 2007
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday issued an en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, overruling the duty of care standard established nearly 25 years ago and increasing the threshold of proof necessary to establish willful infringement.
Tension between Markman and Cybor resolved in favor of Cybor
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 31 2010
In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., Nos. 08-1392, -1393, -1422 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed that eSpeed, Inc., Ecco LLC, Eccoware Ltd., and eSpeed International Ltd. (collectively “eSpeed”) infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent”) and 6,766,304 (“the ’304 patent”), but not willfully.
The Federal Circuit raises the bar for proving willful infringement
- Leonard, Street and Deinard
- -
- USA
- -
- October 8 2007
Patent holders have included a standard allegation of willful infringement as a routine matter in infringement actions in the hope of obtaining enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.
A closer look at the post-Ariad written description requirement
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 30 2012
The decade preceding the Federal Circuit's en banc Ariad decision concerning the written description requirement brought multiple split opinions regarding its proper role under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Reissued i4i panel opinion clarifies willfulness analysis
- McDermott Will & Emery
- -
- USA
- -
- April 28 2010
In a re-issuance of an earlier opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified the willfulness analysis of its earlier decision that affirmed a jury’s $200 million award against Microsoft in a patent infringement action.
I4I Ltd. Partnership & Infrastructures For Info. Inc., v. Microsoft Corp
- Winston & Strawn LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 16 2010
The test for willfulness is distinct and separate from the factors guiding a district court's discretion regarding whether and by how much to enhance damages in light of a willfulness finding.
Therasense v. Becton Dickinson a heightened standard for finding inequitable conduct
- Baker Botts LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 17 2011
In a highly-anticipated decision regarding the doctrine of inequitable conduct, a six-judge majority of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc “tightened the standards for finding both intent and materiality in order to redirect a doctrine that has been overused to the detriment of the public.”