On January 14, 2017, Sanyou was honored as the “China Outstanding IPR Service Team in 2016” in the Awards Gala and Appreciation Dinner of the 7th China IP New Year Forum and 2017 IP Manager Annual Meeting
In the recent decision of Microsoft Corporation v Liu, the Federal Court granted Microsoft's application in part, finding that the respondent, Mr
Parties and courts had come to rely on the so-called "25 percent rule" as a way of calculating a reasonably royalty rate in patent infringement cases.
In response to Order No. 11 in Inv. No. 337-TA-752, Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (“753 Investigation), Motorola filed a statement identifying the products it is accusing of infringement in the 752 Investigation.
On January 4, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the so-called “25 percent rule of thumb” analysis long used by damages experts in patent cases to calculate a “reasonable royalty” is “fundamentally flawed.” Uniloc v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Court denies plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in copyright infringement action, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm.
In its Uniloc decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided much-needed clarification on the calculation of damages in patent infringement lawsuits.
“A reasonable royalty is the predominant measure of damages in patent infringement cases.”
Though the "25 Rule," which presumes that 25 percent of the operating profit from the sale of an infringing good is a reasonable royalty rate, has been frequently relied upon as a starting point in calculating patent infringement damages for more than 40 years, the Federal Circuit recently held that this rule of thumb "is a fundamentally flawed tool.
Brand owners have recently been given new weapons in the never-ending battle against cybersquatters.