Restriction to an Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Proceedings under the Japanese Patent Act

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Hatori
Keyword(s):  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Japanese Patent ◽  
Injunctive Relief

scholarly journals The 'Right' to Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
The Right

‘Enforcement of Patent Law in Civil Proceedings’ – A Conference Report on the Fifth Bi-national Seminar of TU Dresden and Charles University in Prague, 26 November 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 624-629
Author(s):  
David Petrlík ◽  
David Linke
Keyword(s):  
Automotive Industry ◽  
Conference Report ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Good For ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Made In

Abstract What is the law good for if it cannot be enforced? This question is currently virulent in patent law, especially when it comes to the enforcement of injunctive relief claims. From the German perspective, a question arises: does a patent infringement have to automatically result in an injunction (as is the situation currently according to Sec. 139 of the Patent Law Act) or should exceptions be made in special cases? In particular, the automotive industry and also the IT sector demand a modernisation of this provision by introducing a proportionality test, as even the smallest patentable components in networked products can lead to the entire production being blocked in the event of a successful injunction action. Similar problems exist in US patent law. The enforceability of Czech patent law also faces challenges that need to be solved. For this reason, the fifth seminar on the topic ‘Enforcement of Patent Law in Civil Proceedings’ took place on 26 November 2019 at Charles University Prague.

scholarly journals Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Suits

1964 ◽  
Vol 112 (7) ◽  
pp. 1025
Author(s):  
Herbert F. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Injunctive Relief

scholarly journals Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Important Paper ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
System Today ◽  
The Way

Patent law gives patent owners not just the right to prevent others fromcopying their ideas, but the power to control the use of their idea even bythose who independently develop a technology with no knowledge of thepatent or the patentee. In an important paper, Samson Vermont challengesthis received wisdom, arguing that independent invention should be adefense to patent infringement, just as it would be in copyright or tradesecret cases.Independent invention has much to recommend it. The most significantproblem facing the patent system today is the rise of so-called "patenttrolls" - entities who do not manufacture products or transfer technology,but wait and assert patents against successful companies who independentlydeveloped and manufactured the technology without knowledge of the patent.An independent invention defense would eliminate the troll problem in onefell swoop. Nonetheless, I have concerns. While I agree with Vermont thatwe can learn a great deal from the fact of independent invention, I am notyet persuaded that we can be sure that an independent invention defensewill have no undue effect on incentives. Complicating this difficultempirical question is the likelihood that the effects of an independentinvention defense would be different in different industries. Further, anindependent invention defense will significantly change any market forpatent rights that might exist or be developing today.In light of this, I suggest four steps we might take that take advantage ofVermont's insights without moving all the way to an independent inventionsystem. First, we should change the definition of willful infringement toexclude independent inventors. Second, we should adopt some form of a prioruser right. Third, we should give simultaneous invention greater credencein determining whether inventions are obvious. Finally, we might considerwhether the defendant independently invented as a factor in decidingwhether to grant injunctive relief and the conditions to impose on suchrelief.

The practice of claiming injunctive relief for patent infringement in Germany

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-126
Author(s):  
Uwe Scharen
Keyword(s):  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Injunctive Relief

Negotiating Damages after One Step: Employment Team Move and Misuse of Confidential Information Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 363-388
Author(s):  
Philippe Kuhn
Keyword(s):  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Confidential Information ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
One Step

This article addresses monetary remedies in employment team move and misuse of confidential information cases. It argues that, after the Supreme Court's decision in One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner, negotiating (previously Wrotham Park) damages offer a useful additional compensatory tool in misuse of confidential information cases. They can help overcome some of the difficulties with ordinary contractual damages, equitable remedies for breach of fiduciary duty and confidence and limitations in injunctive relief. While One Step is restrictive overall, there is a real role for negotiating damages in employment cases where misuse of confidential information is the sole or predominant breach of contract. The well-established Faccenda approach is suggested for identifying the requisite confidential information.

Calculation of Damages Caused by Patent Infringement: Apportionment Jurisprudence of the U.S.A.

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-375
Author(s):  
Cha Ho Jung ◽  
Sung Pill Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Patent Infringement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document