Greenberg_Anderson_IPSurvey_Fa05_Answer1

Greenberg_Anderson_IPSurvey_Fa05_Answer1 - ID 10 E(am Nlame...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ID IP_Law_SurveY_Greenberg_Morrill NA GreenbergyAnd. . 10: E)(am Nlame: Instruc1tor: (Exam Number) IP _Law_Survey_Greenberg_Morrill NAGreenbergyAnderson ~~ I Page 1 of1 Exam taken with SofTest v8.0A
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ID: 1) PATENT§ SubbQu~~stion A: SUIT AGAINST BB: There applicatioln predate 88's date of sale. that; (i) she show a substantial likelihood of' significant:pdssiblity ofhefsufferfngfrr~perable harm ifa8:'~7PptenjQined -not just ';:"'!!cC for, she)sv~ry unlikety.to get.th~:.:'j:.:1f I!!!! "0""+" preliminary injunction. Page 1 of19
Background image of page 2
(Question 1 continued) IP .law SurVE Greenberg Morr 11 NA GreenbergyAn( permanent injunctions The only times they don't is if there is a significant public interest at stake such as national defense or public health Neither of which is an issue herE~. ':~q~qu~t~compens~tion to make uP.t°r the infringement." Here, either she has to prove actual lost profits in order to get lost prpfits, or in the alternative, is she is unable to prove actual loss, the floor for recovery is "rea~50nable royalty." She is can get treble damages and attorney fees if she is able to ,prove that the infringement was wilful. To show lost profits, the "but for" and "foreseeablility" analyses have to be done, ie, it should have been foreseeable tothe defendant that but for their sates of the infriging device, the plaintiff would have sold morE~ of her devices ~c'~i,$uefor different time periods in the alternative starting wittl,!Q~ long,est one since that one will give her the biggest recovery Therefore, although she can get a patent one other than her knew of her invention that date cannot be considered in damage award analysis since BB can argue that they didn't knol'N of the invention then and they came up with it independantly Therefore, the first significant date is her application date, March 4, 2003 If MJP can prove that BB had gained access to her application, the damage calculation clock will begin ticking Obviously, her application at that time was unpublished and if indeed she is from here ..-' able to prove that BB gained access 10 it, she will have a very strong case for wilful Page 2 of 19
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
(Question 1 continued) ID IP _Law_Survey _Greenberg_Morrill NA GreenbergyAnd infringment and will receover appropriate damages So in this case, she can get money from all the sales that BB made from Summer 2000 to p"esent, ie $1,000,000 (100,000 sold at $10 per device). However, BB will argue that SS 11as only been able to sell 500 devices Therefore it was not foreseeable to BB that but 1'or their sales of the infringing device, MJP would have sold 100,000 more devices. IJJ.eJ~9.r.~,. .,iot.hjs c,as~.MJP~ill most likeJy g~t a reasonable royalty on the sale of the 100,000 devices. Further, if she can prove wilful infringment, this amount will be trebled an~~'gWlr'~ls6 most likely get awarded attorney's fees Secclnd Time Period: March 3D, 2004 to present. Altough BB began selling their devi<:e bE~fore MJ p's patent issued I since she is the patent holder I any sales made by
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 20

Greenberg_Anderson_IPSurvey_Fa05_Answer1 - ID 10 E(am Nlame...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online