Seemingly unrelated, the WSJ’s discussion of antitrust claims challenging below-cost pricing (Antitrust Busters with Gavels, 4/26/2013) and the Internet tabloid Above the Law’s discussion of increased use of “suicide pricing” by Biglaw (Buying In: Suicide Pricing, 4/16/2013
Flat Fee IP
The Frontlines of IP Litigation
Flat Fee IP, published by Greenfield Draa & Harrington, focuses on legal issues related to intellectual property, particularly trade secret misappropriation. The blog discusses topics such as the measurement and duration of damages for trade secret theft, including the application of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and related case law. It addresses complex questions about when damages should begin and end, the concept of unfair commercial advantage or "head start," and the interplay between trade secret protection and monetary relief. The blog also explores litigation strategies, jury trial rights on unjust enrichment damages, and practical considerations in high-stakes IP disputes.
Latest from Flat Fee IP - Page 4
eDiscovery Vendors Should Not Charge for Collecting and Preserving Data
By Dave Bohrer
Why? Our clients, as parties to litigation, are often required to collect and preserve all potentially relevant data. When this happens, they often believe that they have had to pay far more for these services than what was necessary under…
Free Riding and Other Costs to Newegg of “Crushing” NPE Soverain
By Dave Bohrer
Kudos to online retailer Newegg and its Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng on the Federal Circuit decision handed down last week holding that three patents covering basic online checkout technology were invalid. [PDF] The decision reversed the judgment…
Shorter Patent Office Delay Could Increase Chance of Stay
The U.S. Patent Office (“PTO”) has historically moved at a snail’s pace in conducting reexamination proceedings. The length of these reexamination proceedings have typically been the Achilles heel in getting a district court to issue a stay. If the District…
Apple Denied Permanent Injunction: Is “Right to Exclude” a Hollow Relic of the Past?
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh recently ruled that Apple did not meet its burden of proof to permanently enjoin Samsung from continuing to make and sell the twenty-six (26) products that a San Jose jury found infringed six Apple patents…
Court Lets Vringo Bring in Entire Market Value Through Back Door
By Dave Bohrer
Vringo bought Lycos patents on search technology that keys ads to user search queries, then sued Google. At the recently completed trial, Vringo convinced a Virgina jury to award, see page 11 of its Nov. 6 verdict, a reasonable…
Court Recognizes BigLaw Rates Are Too High
This is something companies already know, but the Court has acknowledged it. The billing rates BigLaw charges for intellectual property litigation are too high.
Magistrate Judge Goldman recently found that Jones, Day’s rates in a discovery dispute to compel the…
Why Samsung Losing Its Appeal Is Not Such A Bad Thing: Another Perspective
Since Apple’s $1.05 billion jury verdict and judgment against Samsung for patent and trade dress infringement, there has been much commentary on what it will mean for the future of technological development. Samsung says “we will appeal” and no doubt…
Where There’s a Will There’s a Way: Getting a Faster, Cheaper Decision of a Patent Case
By Dave Bohrer
Statistics show that an accused infringer usually wins on summary judgment, yet the great majority of accused infringers will settle rather than progress to the merits. The reason is that it often costs too much and takes too long to…
Steve Jobs vs. Judge Posner: Ask What Customers Want? (Yes, if You Want Patent Damages)
By Dave Bohrer
Apple founder Steve Jobs famously questioned the value of market research:A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.
Business Week Online, 1988.
We built [the Mac] for ourselves. We were the…