1. On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Christina Schulze published a post titled French PI overpemetrexed confirmed, but new view on provisional damages. The author notes a recent decision of the Paris Court of Appeal that affirmed a preliminary injunction for Eli Lilly’s pemetrexed through mid-2021, but also held that the defendant did not have to pay provisional damages of €4 million. (For previous mention on this blog of the decision awarding the €4 million, see here.) According to the author, the appellate court stated “that potential damages should be dealt with in the proceedings on the merits” and “criticised Eli Lilly’s economic arguments for being insufficiently comprehensive.” The post does not link to the decision itself, but I’m sure it will be published somewhere before long, and at that point I may have more to say about it. Still hoping to work on that long-simmering project on wrongful patent assertion, possibly starting next summer.
2. On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Brian Cordery published AIPPI Panel Session 10: Anti-Suit & anti-anti-suit injunctions. The post recounts a recent panel session of the 2021 AIPPI Congress. According to the author, Nokia’s Clemens-August Heusch argued that “no court should have jurisdiction” to set global FRAND terms “unless agreed by both parties” and that there should be “clearer rules on jurisdiction to avoid” antisuit and anti-antisuit injunctions,” while Kevin Duan noted that “there have actually been” few cases in which antisuit injunctions have been enforced.
3. On Law360, Rich Franciosa and Michael Herrigel published The Comparability Challenges Patent Damages Experts Face. The authors present the findings of a study they conducted analyzing Daubert challenges in patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts from January 1, 2015 through September 30, 2021. Their findings focus on challenges, both regarding technical and economic comparability, to experts’ uses of purportedly comparable licenses.
No comments:
Post a Comment