Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

It's about damages stupid

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

Further to an IPBiz comment on the Rooklidge paper ["S.1145 stumbled over apportionment of damages. That's the issue. The other stuff was window-dressing. Yes, the courts changed some things. But the real issue remains."], note text in a Reuters report on February 9:

A bill to overhaul the U.S. patent system with an eye to reducing the number of lawsuits, and the amount of damages paid, is likely to be revived this year its chief sponsor said on Monday [Feb. 9].

(...)

Big high-tech companies such as Cisco (CSCO.O) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ.N) began pushing for legislation years ago to cut the number of patent infringement lawsuits and the amount of damages paid.

The bill stalled on vocal opposition from drug maker Eli Lilly (LLY.N), seed and herbicide company Monsanto Co (MON.N), and smaller tech companies, which feared lower damages would leave them vulnerable to infringers.

Major tech companies, which sell devices that can have many patented elements, want to reduce damage awards to deter people from filing what tech companies say are unwarranted lawsuits.

The pharmaceutical industry, whose drugs often have just one or two patents, says it needs the threat of high damages to protect its intellectual property.

See the earlier IPBiz post:

Rooklidge's "Reform of a Fast-Moving Target"

Full post as published by IPBiz on February 09, 2009 (boomark / email).