Search results for

By statute, a patent holder, if successful in litigation, is awarded "damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention." (35 USC §284 [2006]; Georgia-Pacific Corp v US Plywood Corp [SDNY 1970]). A reasonable royalty calculation involves determination of the royalty rate and royalty base.

MIP's annual survey of the leading IP firms covers 60 jurisdictions this year, and is the result of five months of research among IP professionals worldwide. James Nurton introduces the first part of the results, and explains how the tables have been compiled

After five months of research, MIP can now unveil the IP survey 2005, listing the leading firms in 57 jurisdictions. The first part, published here, provides a guide to the leading patent firms worldwide. James Nurton explains the new methodology and introduces the results

Depositions are not usually compared to sporting events, although some readers may think that comparing a deposition to a boxing match would be appropriate. In reality, a deposition could be compared to a tennis match because in both, once the event begins, no coaching is allowed. Indeed, in US patent litigation (and other litigation), the rule is that "objections should be stated as briefly as possible" and should not be "designed to coach or suggest an answer to the witness or otherwise to interfere with questioning of the witness by opposing counsel" (Collins v Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc, No CIV A 94-95-4MACWDO, 1998 WL 293314, *1 (MD Ga June 14 1998)). The lawyer defending the witness simply is not permitted to "make any objections or statements which might suggest an answer to a witness or which are intended to communicate caution to a witness with respect to a particular question" nor should the lawyer "attempt[] to suggest to the witness any particular or desired response" (Id at *3; see also Wilson v Sundstrand Corp, Nos 99 C 6944, 2003 WL 22012673, *5 (ND Ill August 25 2003) which held that counsel's objections suggesting answers were improper)). As the Court succinctly stated in Heriaud v Ryder Transp. Servs, No 03 C 0289, 2005 WL 2230199, *8 (ND Ill September 8 2005), when a lawyer is "trying to obstruct his adversaries' ability to obtain answers to their questions, and ... trying to coach his [witness] to answer-or not answer-questions ... [h]is behavior violates every rule of discovery that broaches the subject".

In a victory for companies that compile and redistribute information, a court in Australia has ruled that newspaper headlines should not be protected by copyright

Argentina TRADE MARK PROSECUTION Tier 1 G Breuer Marval, O'Farrell & Mairal Tier 2 Hausheer Belgrano & Fernandez Noetinger & Armando Obligado & Cía Richelet & Richelet Tier 3 Bruchou, Fernandez Madero & Lombardi De Las Carreras & Chaloupka Ferrer Reyes, Tellechea & Bouche Pérez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martínez de Hoz Sena & Berton Moreno Tier 4 Baker & McKenzie Barbat Clarke, Modet & Co Moeller & Co Palacio & Asociados

Biedermann Motech and its licensee DePuy Spine won a patent infringement case in one of the first decisions to apply the US Supreme Court's directives in KSR v Teleflex

In our June, 2007 briefing, we explained that patent trials are almost always open to the public. Of course, trials are the culmination of many months, sometimes years, of pre-trial discovery, including the production of documents containing confidential information and the deposition of witnesses. While it's generally known that such pre-trial discovery is not open to the public, a question often asked, particularly by non-US entities involved in US litigation, is whether the opposing in-house counsel will have access to the confidential documents produced and deposition testimony given in the litigation.

Australia

Patent law reform has garnered a lot of attention recently and there has been extensive media coverage about various patent law reform proposals. There are, however, several statutes and other rules that govern patent cases and, an appropriate question to be asked is "What exactly are the 'laws' that are potentially going to be reformed?"