Remove Licensing Remove Patent Remove Settlement
article thumbnail

CAFC Says District Court Committed ‘Clear Error’ in Enforcing Disputed Settlement Agreement

IP Watchdog

On appeal, the CAFC held that CNC’s version of the agreement more accurately reflected the understanding between the two parties regarding a settlement over Plasmacam’s claim that CNC infringed U.S. 7,071,441 (‘441 patent), for which Plasmacam has an exclusive license.

article thumbnail

Caddo v. Siemens: Microsoft Settlement Covers Downstream Use and No Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parent

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch A short non-precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit provides guidance on two key issues: (1) downstream non-party reliance upon settlement agreements; and (2) personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations. Caddo asserted infringement of six patents relating to user interface navigation methods against Siemens.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

The Comparability Challenges Patent Damages Experts Face

IP Law 360

district court data on how patent damages expert testimony has been challenged based on comparability, and how courts have ruled with regard to license and settlement agreements, litigation verdicts, market studies and more. Rich Franciosa and Michael Herrigel at Charles River Associates analyze nearly seven years of U.S.

article thumbnail

Gilead and ViiV Healthcare Settle Global Patent Dispute for Over $1B USD

IPilogue

Patent 8,129,385 (“patent 385”). This article delves into the legal doctrines that support the parties’ claims and the overarching strategy to their settlement. ViiV alleges Gilead infringed upon patent 385 under the doctrine of equivalents, which has two exclusions: dedication-disclosure and specific exclusion.

Patent 119
article thumbnail

Redacted Settlement Offers Are Admissible to Show Industry Practice for FRAND Negotiations

JD Supra Law

In advance of a new trial to determine damages for patent infringement, a district court denied plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendants from introducing the terms of plaintiff’s settlement offers.

article thumbnail

Appealing IPR Decisions – Art. III Standing in the Context of Litigation Settlements and Licenses

LexBlog IP

The Federal Circuit has provided additional guidance about an appellant’s standing to appeal IPR decisions after settling the related litigations and entering into patent license agreements. The saga began with Qualcomm accusing Apple of infringing several patents in district court. patents 7,844,037 and 8,683,362.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court of China casted punitive damages upon post-settlement-agreement repeated patent infringement

The IPKat

In that regard, punitive damages for IPRs infringements have found their places in, but not limited to, China’s Civil Code (CCC), Copyright Law, Trade Mark Law and Patent Law (see former IPKat posts here and here ). In April 2021, Jin sued Baijia store for patent infringement. One month later, a settlement was reached.