Greenberg_Anderson_IPSurvey_Fa05_Answer2

Greenberg_Anderson_IPSurvey_Fa05_Answer2 - ID: ID: Exam...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ID: ID: Exam Name: Instructor: (Exam Number) IP _Law_Survey_Greenberg_Morrill NAGreenbergyAnderson I Page 1 of 1 Exam taken with SofTest v8.0A ID: 1) PATENTS SubbQuestion A: /""""~":""'" 7t SUIT AGAINST ss: There that; (i) she show a substantial likelihood of~ signific~nt.pdssiblity ofhEi!rsufferingirreperable h~fm ifla~:c~~pPtc~njoined -not just ...c;c".cccccccc c".."'(~i:!,ccc. ,"",". for, she tS'cveryunllkely togett~~{~.'11 ;;. ,;;'CCc"." c preliminary injunction. .j 2 Page 1 of 19 (Question 1 continued) ID: IP_Law_SurveY_Greenberg_Mo~rill NA GreenbergyAnd... 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. '~~gf#q,Y~t~'.'Comp~n.$qtion to make ~p!or the !i;;!:1;f"!?;c 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 recov'ery is "reasonable 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 ", i";,.,r;,;:" "',,;' "foreseeablility" analyses have to be done, ie, it should have been foreseeablet6the defendant that but for their sales of the infriging device, th~ plaintiff would have sold .Crt;\',: c' c'~~:~~'of her devices. 'I since that one will give her the biggest recovery is Summer20q~.;;j~owe~r, at.tb~~~i~:no ""vi" one other than her knew of her invention. Therefore, although she can get a patent, that date cannot be considered in damage award analysis since BB can argue that they didn't know of the invention then and they came up with itindependantly. Therefore, the first significant date is her application date, March 4, 2003. If MJP can prove that BBhadgalned access to her application, the damage calcuiation clock will begin ticking from here. Obviously I her application at that time was unpublished and if indeed she is...
View Full Document

Page1 / 9

Greenberg_Anderson_IPSurvey_Fa05_Answer2 - ID: ID: Exam...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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