In a design patent infringement case, 35 U.S.C. §289 authorizes the award of total profit from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design

Kumiko Ide | May 27, 2015

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

May 18, 2015

Before: Prost, O’Malley and Chen.  Opinion by Prost.


The CAFC affirmed the jury’s verdict on the design patent infringements and the validity of utility patent claims, and the damages awarded for these infringements appealed by Samsung.  However, CAFC reversed the jury’s findings that the asserted trade dresses are protectable.  Regarding the design patent infringement issue, Samsung proposed that functional aspects of the design patents should be “ignored” in their entirety in a design patent infringement analysis, the CAFC disagreed.  Moreover, the CAFC found that the district court did not err by allowing jury to award damages based on Samsung’s entire profits on its infringing smartphones.

サムスン社は、控訴審において、意匠特許の機能的部分は意匠特許侵害の分析において無視されるべきであると主張した。CAFCは、機能的部分の装飾的な特徴は意匠特許によりカバーされるため、意匠特許侵害の分析において機能的部分を無視すべきというサムスン社の主張には同意しなかった。また、サムスン社は、意匠特許侵害の損害賠償は、侵害商品の全体としての利益(entire profit)に基づいて計算されるべきでないと主張したものの、特許法第289条は、意匠特許侵害の損害賠償を侵害商品の全体としての利益(entire profit)に基づいて計算することを可能としているため、CAFCはこの主張にも同意しなかった。

Read More/続きを読む

Under the AIA, a False Marking Action Can Be Brought by a Potential Competitor who Suffers a Competitive Injury

Bernadette McGann | May 20, 2015

Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc.

May 4, 2015

Before: Prost, Newman and Reyna.  Opinion by Prost.


The CAFC herein affirms the District Court grant of Nautilus’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss Sukumar’s false marking suit.  The District Court held that Sukumar had not suffered a competitive injury and thus, lacked standing to enforce 35 U.S.C. 292.  The CAFC herein determines who has standing to bring a false marking action.

Read More/続きを読む

PTO Need Not Terminate Inter Partes Re-exam Even After Parties Have Settled on Validity.

Sadao Kinashi | May 18, 2015

Automated Merchandising Sys. v. Lee

April 10, 2015

Before: Prost, Taranto, Fogel; Opinion by Taranto


Inter partes re-exams were initiated during the litigation.  Parties settled the litigation, and the court issued consent judgment.  Patentee requested PTO to terminate the re-exams, but PTO refused to terminate alleging that there was no “decision” by the court.  Patentee sued PTO under Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  District court granted summary judgment in favor of PTO.  CAFC affirmed the summary judgment.

Read More/続きを読む

Federal Circuit Reasonably Certain Biosig’s Patent Not Indefinite

John Kong | April 29, 2015

Biosig Instruments v. Nautilus

April 27, 2015

Before: Newman, Schall, and Wallach.  Opinion by Wallach.


On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit applies the “new” indefiniteness test announced by the Supreme Court in “Nautilus II” and concludes that the disputed term “spaced relationship” in Biosig’s patent claims is not indefinite.  After a two year hiatus from the first time the Federal Circuit decided this case in April 2013 in “Nautilus I,” the Federal Circuit comes to the same conclusion as it did under the previous indefiniteness test.

Read More/続きを読む

Next Page »

Subscribe | 登録



词典 / 辞書 / 사전

Double click on any word on the page or type a word:

Powered by