Here's the per curiam opinion, which states in relevant part "On remand, the trial court should consider the parties’ arguments in light of the trial record and determine what additional proceedings, if any, are needed. If the court determines that a new damages trial is necessary, it will have the opportunity to set forth a test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture for purposes of § 289, and to apply that test to this case." For previous blog posts on this case, see, e.g., here. I also participated in an IP Chat Channel webinar on the issue a few weeks ago, which (if you missed it but are interested in hearing it) you can still register to listen to, here.
Post a Comment