Evidence : CAFC Alert

Damage calculations based on entire market value rule is improper absent evidence that patented feature drives demand for entire multi-component product

| September 19, 2012

LaserDynamics, Inc., v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,

August 30, 2012

Panel:  Dyk, Clevenger and Reyna.  Opinion by Reyna.


LaserDynamics, owner of a patent regarding optical disc drives, sued Quanta Computer Inc. and Quanta Storage Inc., etc. for patent infringement.  In calculating damages, the entire market value rule is a narrow exception to the general rule under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to compensate for the infringement.  Only if showing that the patented feature drives the demand for an entire multi-component product, a patentee may be awarded damages as a percentage of revenues or profits of the entire product.  The date of the hypothetical negotiation for the purpose of determining the reasonable royalty is the date that the infringement began, which is sometimes or often earlier than the date of the first notice of the infringer’s infringement.  To prove or tend to prove a reasonable royalty, the evidence of the granted licenses and the royalties received by the patentee for the patent in suit are probative.

原告は光ディスクドライブに関する特許の所有者であり、光ディスクドライブメーカーと、そのドライブを組み込んだラップトップPC組立メーカーとを特許侵害で訴えた。争点の一つは、損害賠償の計算方法であるが、特許技術の部品を含む完成品の市場価格に基づく計算方法(entire market value rule)は、合理的なロイヤルティ(reasonable royalty)について定めた特許法284条の例外であるため、特許の特徴が複数部品からなる完成品全体に対する需要を引き起こしたということを証明しなければ、そのような計算方法を使用することはできない。換言すると、そのような立証ができた場合にのみ、特許権者はその完成品の売上もしくは利益に乗じた損害賠償を受けることができる。また、合理的なロイヤリティを決定するための判断基準となる日は、いわゆる仮想的交渉日(hypothetical negotiation date)に基づいて判断されるのであるが、それは、被告による侵害開始の日であって、被告が侵害を最初に知った日(たとえば警告日や訴状提出日)ではない。さらに、合理的なロイヤルティを証明するためには、問題特許に関して、特許権者が受け取ったロイヤルティなどが、証拠の一つとなる。

Read More/続きを読む

A showing of causal nexus is required between infringement and alleged harm to patentee

| May 23, 2012

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

May 14, 2012

Panel:  Bryson, Prost, and O’Malley.  Opinion by Bryson.  Concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part by O’Malley.


Apple filed suit against Samsung alleging infringement of Apple’s U.S. Design Patent Nos. D593,087 (“the D’087 patent”), D618,677 (“the D’677 patent”), D504,889 (“the D’889 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (“the ’381 patent”).  Apple’s iPhone embodies the design in the D’087 patent and D’677 patent, and Apple’s iPad embodies the design in the D’889 patent.  Both iPhone and iPad embody a software feature known as the “bounce-back” feature of the ‘381 patent.  The district court denied Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to each of the accused devices and all four asserted patents.  Apple appealed.  The CAFC affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to the D’087, D’677, and ’381 patents, but vacates and reminds with respect to the D’889 patent.


Read More/続きを読む

Supreme Court Sides with Inventors in Kappos v. Hyatt

| May 16, 2012

David J. Kappos v. Gilbert P. Hyatt

April 18, 2012

Affirmed 9-0 (CAFC en banc 7-2 decision).  Opinion by Justice Thomas.  Concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor joined by Justice Breyer.


The Hyatt decision is a victory for patent applicants.  Any patent applicant dissatisfied with a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (or Patent Trial and Appeal Board after enactment of the AIA) may file a civil action against the Director of the PTO in federal district court and introduce new evidence beyond what was submitted to the PTO.  The new evidence is subject to de novo review.

Read More/続きを読む

Unexpected results, not disclosed in the specification, of a compound may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness

| April 2, 2012

Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.

August 23, 2011

Panel:  Lourie, Plager and Dyk.  Opinion by Lourie.  Concurrence-in-part and dissent-in part by Dyk.


Today, we bring you the first in a series of three articles regarding an important case from last year.   This article discusses the following question:

Question:  Can evidence of unexpected results of a compound be used to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, where the unexpected result is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed?

Answer: Yes.

Evidence of unexpected results to a property of a compound, where the unexpected result is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed, can be used to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.

Read More/続きを読む

Joint Inventorship of a novel compound may exist even if co-inventor only developed method of making

| January 25, 2012

Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed

January 23, 2012

Panel:  Linn, Prost and Reyna.  Opinion by Linn.


The CAFC held that a putative inventor who envisioned the structure of a novel chemical compound and contributed to the method of making that compound is a joint inventor of a claim covering that compound.  One may be a joint inventor even if co-inventor’s contribution to conception is merely a method of making the claimed product and said co-inventor does not synthesize the claimed compound.

Read More/続きを読む

CAFC rejects BPAI’s “thrust of rejection” argument

| December 1, 2011


(Reexamination Nos. 90/006,824 and 90/007,619)

(CAFC, October 5, 2011)


Before DYK, FRIEDMAN, and PROST, Circuit Judges. PROST, Circuit Judge.


Patentee appeals the Examiner’s final rejection on reexamination.  On appeal, the BPAI affirms the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for essentially the same reasons, but treats the primary reference as prior art under §102(a) in contrast to the Examiner’s reliance on the primary reference as prior art under §102(b) in the Examiner’s answer.  However, the BPAI does not issue a new ground of rejection, since the thrust of the rejection was the same as the Examiner’s rejection.  The Patentee appeals to the CAFC asserting the need for a full and fair opportunity to litigate the BPAI’s actual basis of rejection.  The CAFC rejects the BPAI’s thrust of the rejection argument, vacates the BPAI’s decision and remands with instructions to designate its rejection as a new ground of rejection.

Read More/続きを読む

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al.

| June 24, 2011


米国最高裁判所は次のことを示した。特許侵害訴訟の被告が抗弁として特許無効を主張する場合、被告は、「clear and convincing evidence(明確且つ説得力のある証拠)」によって特許無効を立証しなければならない。



マイクロソフト社の抗弁の一つは、当該特許を具現化した製品が米国特許の出願日よりも1年以上前に販売されていたことに基づく(所謂on sale bar)特許無効の主張であった。



その結果、地裁は、マイクロソフト社の侵害を認定するとともに、マイクロソフトはon sale barによる特許無効を「明確且つ説得力のある証拠」によって立証できなかったとして、マイクロソフト社の特許無効の主張を退けた。CAFCも、特許法282条の長年の解釈に依拠して、地裁判決を支持した。そして、マイクロソフトは、最高裁にアピールしたのである。

特許法282条では、「presumed valid(特許は有効とみなす)」という文言があるが、その立証基準については明示されていない。そこで、マイクロソフトは、被告による特許無効の立証基準は、「clear and convincing evidence(明確且つ説得力のある証拠)」ではなく、より低い基準である「preponderance of evidence(どちらの証拠に優越性があるか。すなわち、そうである証拠が、そうでない証拠よりも優越しているということを示せばよい)」により判断されるべきであるとして争った

Read More/続きを読む

Subscribe | 登録



词典 / 辞書 / 사전
  • dictionary
  • dictionary
  • 英語から日本語

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

Powered by dictionarist.com