Category IP Law

US High Court Muddies Rule On Design Patent Damages

The United States Supreme Court yesterday provided a big victory for Samsung – and common sense, according to many experts. The high court ruled that Samsung need not pay $399 million in damages – all the company’s profits from 11 models of smartphones – simply because one or two tiny components of those phones infringed design patents owned by Apple. But Samsung isn’t out of the woods yet. Because despite the importance of today’s Supreme Court decision, the high court left an even more important issue unresolved.

Support IP-Watch: An Appeal To Readers

Intellectual Property Watch needs your financial support. As one of our readers, you know that IP-Watch plays a vital role in international policymaking on intellectual property and innovation through its independent, reliable, balanced and dedicated news coverage. But like other…

Helping Patenters In A Sea Of PAEs: Interview With LOT Network’s Ken Seddon

Patent assertion entity (PAE) activity has skyrocketed in the past decade and much discussion has occurred around what to do in response to patent holders whose strategy is more focused on legal battles than innovating. One notable group has risen up to bring together global companies to address the PAE issue with a novel sharing approach. In an interview with Intellectual Property Watch, Ken Seddon, CEO and President of LOT Network, talks about the group's rapid growth, what's coming next, and how not to bring a squirt gun to a nuclear fight.

UK Decision To Ratify EU Patent Court Leaves Key Questions Hanging

The United Kingdom government is preparing to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, it said on 28 November. The move took the patent community by surprise but failed to relieve uncertainty about what will happen when the UK finally Brexits the EU, according to patent attorneys in the UK.

Antigua & Barbuda To Lift US IP Protection In 2017 If US Fails To Comply With WTO Ruling

Caribbean nation Antigua & Barbuda has declared that it will exercise an option granted it by a World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel to lift protection on US intellectual property rights starting in 2017 if the US does not finally change a law blocking the island nation's online gambling services or compensate it.

Kenya: Collective Management Organisations In Danger After Court Questions Their Role

NAIROBI, Kenya -- A ruling this month by a Kenyan court that artists, performers and musicians cannot be compelled or forced to join a collective management organisation (CMO) to collect royalties on their behalf could spell doom for CMOs in the country, experts fear.

Intellectual Property In Russia To Become Subject Of Antitrust Regulation

Intellectual property in Russia will become a subject of antitrust regulation starting next year, according to recent statements of an official spokesman of the Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (FAS).

Navigating Fragmented Laws And Systems Around Tobacco Packaging Lawsuits

Sitting between different rights, powers and principles at the intersection of differing legal regimes is the case of Philip Morris v Uruguay. The case, which concerns Uruguayan regulations that impose enlarged graphic health warning requirements on tobacco packaging and reduce the varieties of a tobacco brand that can be sold, has since its decision in July this year by an investor-state arbitration tribunal, has caused much discussion among legal practitioners and academia and attracted broader public attention.

US High Court Puts Unreasonable Delay On Trial

On its face, the case is a humdrum, procedural dispute about a patentee’s delay in filing an infringement suit. But if the Supreme Court rules the way most experts expect, the decision will significantly enhance the power of patent trolls and others alleging patent infringement, and it will harm many companies doing business in the US – especially companies in the tech sector. Much hangs in the balance on 1 November, when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in SCA Hygiene Products AG v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC.