tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post8449129448184011406..comments2023-08-17T14:09:24.945+01:00Comments on PatLit: the patent litigation weblog: Damages for infringing invalid patents: a question of symmetry?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-46262168232910071722016-10-10T01:50:20.102+01:002016-10-10T01:50:20.102+01:00Virgin Atlantic now says otherwise Virgin Atlantic now says otherwise Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-69923645806132083582013-02-18T17:05:44.665+00:002013-02-18T17:05:44.665+00:00Having read the learned Blogs with great interest ...Having read the learned Blogs with great interest I would like, if possible views on the following: A Company owns a patent that that was applied for in 2002. The inventor was dismissed from the Company some 4-years ago for purported fraud. He had been working on the product for at least 8-years prior to taking out the Patent in 2002. In 1994 product was sold in the market place by at least one large well- know retailers although the 2002 Patent itself, detailed a slightly different product to that previously sold. In 1997-8 the inventor instructed a Company to supply a product similar to the end product. However the supply Company proceeded to take a Patent out itself in 1998, having first invited a major public Company, to join forces in its application. By and large this Patent replicated a product almost the same as that of the inventor it had been producing product for. On being made aware of the patent application by the Inventor in 2002, the manufacturing Company sent letters pointing out that it already had a Patent covering the product the inventors patent purported IPR on. The inventor immediately challenged the letter saying that the prior-art had been stolen from him by its other partner. The inventor then produced evidence of his prior art which caused the major public Company partner to walk away, having taken legal advice. The left the other partner as sole owner. By accident, the then ex-partner continued to pay patent fees for approx 6-years, after which it stopped which resulted in the Patent Office cancelling it. A year or so later, after the Inventor was dismissed from the Company which owned the Patent, he approached the sole owner of the Patent that had been cancelled for non-payment and colluded with him to approach the Patent Office with the story that non-payment of the Patent was a mistake and as such could they reinstate it. They did. Since then it has been sold/passed on to another Company which has threatened to take legal action and claim damages against the major supplier of the product covered by the 2002 Patent. No product had been made up until the 1998 patent had been resurrected in 2009. Directly the new Company took-over the Patent it started making product and the threats started in earnest a few months thereafter. Since when then however more evidence of prior-art has come to light showing several major companies in America had been granted Patents on the same technology many years before 1998. As such is it correct to assume this not only renders the 1998 patent invalid but also puts a question mark over those who are threatening the action? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-90708246756738909632011-02-02T04:04:46.200+00:002011-02-02T04:04:46.200+00:00I´m not sure if there should be a "too late&q...I´m not sure if there should be a "too late" time for getting damages back...<br /><br />I was checking this site called http://www.aminn.org/ and they specified exactly that...<br /><br />Good post guys!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-69433050403116075452011-01-31T12:10:06.564+00:002011-01-31T12:10:06.564+00:00Further to Norman's remark, I believe that the...Further to Norman's remark, I believe that the NotW position follows the case law in the earlier Jeffrey Archer "saga" (he with the fragrant wife).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-10560884968130970502011-01-28T14:38:57.621+00:002011-01-28T14:38:57.621+00:00I'm inclined to think Coflexip was correctly d...I'm inclined to think Coflexip was correctly decided, for reasons of finality, even apart from the fairness considerations raised in the post. But it does make me wonder about analogous situations outside patent law. I understand that News of the World intends to bring an action to recover the £200,000 awarded to Sheridan as a result of his perjury. It also seems right me that NoW should recover - but what exactly is the distinction between the two? Perhaps it is that the fraud affected the prior proceedings themselves. This implies that damages awarded in a patent action might be recovered if, e.g. the finding of validity had been based on some kind of misconduct in the litigation by the patentee, perhaps 'fraudulent' concealment of prior art.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-45710893976394966162011-01-27T14:19:57.503+00:002011-01-27T14:19:57.503+00:00You have to define a time after which it is too la...You have to define a time after which it is too late to get your damages back, even if the patent is revoked later. Otherwise you could have defendants seeking to recover from patentees years and years after they paid their damages.<br /><br />The only logical and fair date is the date on which damages are ordered to be paid (even if the amount to be date is left to be determined later).The Bright Sparkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16592887484444279014noreply@blogger.com