Wednesday, January 22, 2020

From Around the Blogs, Part 2

1.  Sarah Burstein published a post on Patently-O titled Against the Design Seizure Bill.  As the titled suggests, the post argues against passage of a bill, the Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019, which "would allow Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to seize goods accused of design patent infringement."  Professor Burstein contends, inter alia, that the bill would "allow design patent owners to foist their private enforcement costs onto taxpayers, under circumstances that are unlikely to result in accurate determinations of infringement," and elaborates on three specific reasons why she believes the bill is a bad idea.  The post also cites some other commentary on the bill, both pro and con, including this piece by Josh Landau.

2.  On Kluwer, Enrico Bonadio and Luke McDonagh have published a post titled .  The post asserts that "a further reference to the CJEU during 2020 will have to be made in order to resolve the tensions between the German and Dutch approaches," and also discusses the pending Unwired Planet case in the U.K.

3.  On Law360, Dorothy Atkins published a post titled Baker Botts Atty Says Halo Drastically Titled Patent Trial Odds.  The article summarizes a presentation given by Wayne Stacy at the 20th Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute, asserting that "since Halo put the question of willfulness to jurors, there's been a shift in the plaintiff's favor when willfulness is on the verdict form, increasing plaintiff's wins from 48% before Halo to 78% after Halo."  The presentation slides are available on the Institute's webpage here.  That webpage also links to slides from a presentation by Alyssa Caridis titled Exceptional Cases - Five Years After Octane Fitness, which states inter alia that "In the last 5 years, courts deemed 200 cases exceptional and awarded fees," and that "when a court renders a decision on the merits (as compared with deferring or dismissing as moot) exceptional case filings have a 34 percent success rate"; slides from another presentation (given by Hon. Susan van Keulen and Paul Bondor, and moderated by Greg Pinsonneault) titled Damages Contentions:  Theory and Practice; and from a presentation (by DJ Healey, Celeste Savaria, LauraStorrto, and Ellisen Turner) titled FTC vs. Qualcomm and Other Recent Antitrust Developments in High Tech and Life Sciences.

4. Also on Law360, Dan Werner published an expert analysis titled Latest Daubert Cases, Econ Studies Hold IP Damages Lessons.  The article discusses four recent U.S. district court decisions addressing the use of forward citation analysis as an aid in determining patent valuation/damages.  The article also cites to an article that was published last year that I had overlooked, Peter Malaspina's Patent Citation Analysis and Patent Damages, 18 Chi -Kent J. Intell. Prop. 232 (2019).

5.  Although it's not directly relevant to patent remedies, Amy Howe's Scotus Blog post titled FTC files own petition, suggesting divide in federal government may be of interest to readers of this blog.  The post discusses some recent Supreme Court cert petitions addressing the question of whether the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes courts to award restitution (for example, of money obtained through deceptive advertising).  Apparently the FTC and the Solicitor General are taking different positions on whether the question is ready for Supreme Court review.  Also of interest, for those interested in FTC matters, are articles on Bloomberg and Law360 discussing Axon Enterprises' recent argument before a district court challenging the constitutionality of the structure of the FTC.

No comments:

Post a Comment