Day 17 of One Month to More Effective Continuous Improvement-Financial Health Monitoring
This Year's AmLaw 100: "Fundamental Recovery" for Some
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision limiting the Lanham Act’s scope of damages in a trademark infringement action. The case involves a trademark dispute between two...more
The Supreme Court vacates a decision treating a company and its affiliates as "one and the same" for purposes of disgorging profits for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, but leaves many questions unaddressed....more
Key Takeaways - A plaintiff prevailing in a trademark infringement suit is often entitled to an award of the “defendant’s profits.” 15 U.S.C. §1117(a)....more
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., vacating a nearly $43 million profits award and remanding the case for further consideration. The Court concluded...more
The US Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari on the issue of whether a corporation can be held liable for the conduct of its affiliate without first satisfying the well-settled standards for piercing the corporate...more
Late last month, in a landmark decision heralded by brand owners, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Romag Fasteners, Inc v Fossil Group, Inc that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a...more
The “soft” IP world is looking forward to rulings in six trademark and copyright cases this term, far more than in recent years, and all of which address points of uncertainty that will impact trademark and copyright...more
The American Bar Association (“ABA”) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the petitioner in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233....more
In June 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233. As set forth in our previous blog post, Romag Fasteners Inc. (“Romag”) seeks to have the Court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted writ of certiorari in a case with significant potential to alter the trademark infringement damages calculus. In that case, Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc. et al., Case No....more
On Friday, June 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide the circumstances necessary to support an award of a trademark infringer’s profits under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Romag Fasteners...more
On Friday, June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. to decide whether a showing of willfulness is necessary to obtain a defendant’s profits under the Lanham Act....more
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), trademark holder who proves infringement may receive as damages an award of profits “subject to the principles of equity.” This phrase has divided the circuit courts going back several decades, with...more
A petition for writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court asks the Court to decide whether a plaintiff must prove willful infringement to obtain an award of a trademark infringer’s profits for a violation of 15...more
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) alleging that several Samsung smartphones infringed utility and design patents owned...more
December has been a hot month for IP law, with important developments in several cases that may significantly impact your intellectual property prosecution and enforcement strategies. Here is a brief summary of each of these...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 opinion reversed and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit an award to Apple, Inc. of $399 million of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s total profits on...more
The Supreme Court of the United States handed Samsung a victory yesterday by reversing a $400 million judgment previously won by Apple for infringement of several of Apple's design patents. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the...more
A unanimous Supreme Court held in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. that Section 289 of the Patent Act does not demand that the entire, infringing end-user product be the basis for determining damages for design patent...more
Since their initial release, smartphones have been a hot commodity with intense competition. One particularly contentious issue has been their appearance. During early development, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) obtained several...more
On December 6, 2016, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the damages award in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. The question before the...more
A Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Pulls Back the Reach of Damages Awards for Design Patents Summary The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, unanimously held that damages awards for design patent infringement need...more
In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States today reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision upholding Apple Inc.’s nearly $400 million design patent award against Samsung Electronics Co.,...more
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision on the issue of damages for design patent infringement that continues the Apple v. Samsung smartphone legal odyssey. It also marks only the second time...more
The Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 ruled that when considering the basis for awarding damages based on the infringer’s profits from infringing a design patent, it is not necessary to base these damages on the profit made...more