1. Many readers probably are aware of this already, but two weeks ago a jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict in favor of KAIST IP against Samsung in the amount of $400 million. The jury also concluded that Samsung willfully infringed, thus potentially opening the door to enhanced damages. Story on Bloomberg News here, copy of the jury verdict here.
2. On Trust in IP, Yangjin Li published a post titled Latest status and trend of patent litigations in China. The post discusses a report prepared by IPHOUSE providing data on the number of patent cases filed in China, the duration of proceedings, and so on, and concludes with some statistics on damages:
Compared to the past, the damages awarded by the Chinese courts in patent infringement cases have increased significantly in the last few years. The report records a so far highest damage for patent infringement of over 80 million yuan (10.6 million Euro), which was ordered in 2017 in a case between Huawei and Samsung. However, according to the report, the average amount of damage awarded in all the patent civil cases with published decisions from 2013 to 2017 is still just about 102,000 yuan (13,500 Euro), wherein the average amount is about 443,000 yuan (58,700 Euro) if counting invention patents only.
One reason for the relatively low damages may be the fact that statutory damages have been awarded in most cases. As shown in the report, statutory damages have been awarded in 188 out of 227 top cases in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. . . .
Highly recommended.
3. Also in this vein, Mark Cohen published a post on the China IPR Blog titled Reviewing the 2017 SPC Report on IPR Judicial Protection: The Generalities and the Exceptions, summarizing the Supreme People's Court 2017 Report on the Situation Regarding Judicial Enforcement of IPR in China. There were 16,010 first-instance patent cases filed in China in 2017 (presumably this includes not only invention patents but also utility models and design patents). Interesting to hear that China is considering implementing a specialized IP appellate court.
3. Also in this vein, Mark Cohen published a post on the China IPR Blog titled Reviewing the 2017 SPC Report on IPR Judicial Protection: The Generalities and the Exceptions, summarizing the Supreme People's Court 2017 Report on the Situation Regarding Judicial Enforcement of IPR in China. There were 16,010 first-instance patent cases filed in China in 2017 (presumably this includes not only invention patents but also utility models and design patents). Interesting to hear that China is considering implementing a specialized IP appellate court.
4. Clifford Chance's Global Intellectual Property Newsletter SEP/FRAND and Other IP Topics (Issue 06/18) is available here and contains articles by Claudia Milbradt titled Germany: Update on the Latest Decisions by German Courts Regarding FRAND/SEP; by Miquel Montañá, titled Spain: The Latest European Commission Guidance on FRAND Licensing of SEPs; and by Jill Ge, titled China: Huawei v. Samsung--FRAND Litigation in China.
5. Finally, for further commentary on the U.S. Supreme Court's WesternGeco opinion on damages and extraterritoriality, see these posts from Tim Holbrook, Michael Risch, Gene Quinn, and Gene & Renee Quinn. The IP Chat Channel also will be hosting a webinar on the case soon; I'll provide details when I have them. For my post on the case, see here.
5. Finally, for further commentary on the U.S. Supreme Court's WesternGeco opinion on damages and extraterritoriality, see these posts from Tim Holbrook, Michael Risch, Gene Quinn, and Gene & Renee Quinn. The IP Chat Channel also will be hosting a webinar on the case soon; I'll provide details when I have them. For my post on the case, see here.
No comments:
Post a Comment