We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 261

Jury finds for Heinz in “Dip & Squeeze” packet dispute
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 3 2015

A federal jury in Pennsylvania has found that H.J. Heinz Co. did not appropriate the idea of a dual-opening condiment packaging, the "Dip & Squeeze"


Pre-issuance information relevant to royalty damages
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 10 2013

In Philippi, the court concluded that, while pre-issuance sales and marketing data was relevant to royalty damages and was thus discoverable, it was


LaserDynamics zaps damages
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 16 2013

The district court in Electro-Mechanical strictly interpreted LaserDynamics to toss a jury’s damages verdict


Lump sum trumps EMVR?
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 16 2013

The HTC Corp. court may have carved out a limited exception to the EMVR. The judge allowed a damages expert to say the hypothetical negotiation would


Right to sue for damages not assigned
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 13 2013

The court in Nano-Second ruled an assignment must contain an express provision allowing the assignee to sue for infringement occurring prior to the


Defense expert opens way for $85 million award after plaintiff precluded from putting on evidence
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 13 2013

As a Defendant, think long and hard about whether to use a damages expert when the patentee has been precluded from presenting a reasonable royalty


License comparable even though not a patent license
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 29 2013

Damages experts are always “on the record.” While it may have been a close call for the court, the testimony of Defendant’s damages expert that a


Expert’s lost profits analysis legally deficient testimony excluded
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 29 2013

Damages experts have to play by the rules. Short cuts simply don’t work. In Subotinic, the court tossed the damages expert’s testimony on lost profit


When it rains, it pours: court grants plaintiff fees, interest, doubles damages, and supplemental damages
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 13 2013

The Alps South court found for Plaintiff on every damages-related post-trial issue after the jury found the patent valid and willfully infringed


Federal Circuit issues seven opinions on patentability of software innovations
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 16 2013

The en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has divided over whether method and computer-readable media claims and system claims are directed to