Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> FileWrapper
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: FileWrapperWhen market entry fee part of damages for patent infringement, permanent injunction inappropriate
By McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of infringement of a patent relating to the detection and classification of Hepatitis C Virus, but remanded the case for a determination of anticipation.
In arguably the most interesting aspect of the decision, the court vacated the permanent injunction entered against the defendant. The plaintiff asked for and was awarded damages to compensate for the amount the defendant would have had to pay the plaintiff for a "market entry fee." As a result, the court reasoned the plaintiff could not assert that it would be irreparably harmed by future sales by the defendant, having already been compensated for the harm caused by the defendant's entry to the market. The court therefore instructed the district court on remand to determine the amount of royalty due on the defendant's compulsory license under the patent going forward.
The court briefly mentioned the issue of willful infringement after In re Seagate Technology, LLC, but only noted that there was no evidence of objective recklessness by the defendant and therefore the finding of no willful infringement was appropriate. The court also gave a reminder to parties and lawyers of the potential consequences when being too cavalier toward obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As explained in the court's footnote 4:
This case aptly demonstrates the pitfalls of playing fast and loose with rules of discovery. Conclusory expert reports, eleventh hour disclosures, and attempts to proffer expert testimony without compliance with Rule 26 violate both the rules and principles of discovery, and the obligations lawyers have to the court. Exclusion and forfeiture are appropriate consequences to avoid repeated occurrences of such manipulation of the litigation process.More detail of Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs. after the jump.
[More]
Full post as published by FileWrapper on January 21, 2008 (boomark / email).
Worker's Compensation Laws Overview
Protect Workers From Injuries with plans that cover medical expenses and long-term or permanent disabilites
Landlord Entry Right and Tenant Privacy
When can a landlord enter a rented dwelling
Bextra Injury Risks
Bextra Increases Risk of Fatal Heart Attack
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
The Princeton Review
$2.6 million settlement reached in patent infringement case.
Underground Piping
Insituform Technologies awarded $4.5 million patent infringement settlement.
DNA Products
Agilent Technologies pays undisclosed patent infringement settlement to Invitrogen Corporation.

Non-Practicing Licensor Denied Preliminary Injuction
How to Avoid a Permanent Injunction: The Lessons of Amgen v. Hoffmann-LaRoche
Automatic Injunctions in Patent Cases must Conform to a Four-Prong Equitable Test.
Fallout From eBay v. MercExchange - Court Denies Injunction








