Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

The Supreme Court Reviews the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion: LG Electronics v. Quanta Computer

By Philip G. Semprevio II

For the past several years, the Supreme Court has been paying close attention to the patent laws and the effects those laws have on business relationships. There have been eight patent cases decided by the Supreme Court over the past five years; this trend shows no signs of stopping. The Court recently granted certiorari to Quanta Computer in a case that could potentially change the environment in which business is done. The case, LG Electronics v. Quanta Computer, was decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 7, 2006. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of LG Electronics (LGE), overturning the ruling by the Northern District of California, which found that LGE’s patents at issue in the case were exhausted. Since the Supreme Court has decided to take this case, they will have the opportunity to differentiate between two separate branches of the patent exhaustion doctrine that have evolved over nearly a century of patent jurisprudence. That last time the Court addressed patent exhaustion explicitly was in 1942.

This article will address the history of the patent exhaustion doctrine and how this line of cases evolved into the Supreme Court issue it is today. After the background for the case has been described, a discussion of where the case history and an application of how the Supreme Court should apply the exhaustion doctrine in this case will follow.

[view abstract]|[download PDF]

Copyright Infringement and Bankruptcy: The Meaning Of Willful in Two Statutory Schemes

By Caitlin McGowan
A single mother of two downloads twenty songs off of the Internet from a service provider. A record company sues her for willful copyright infringement alleging that she downloaded the music when she had reason to know that the songs were illegal downloads. Thus, the download of the songs was considered a willful copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and was subject to the maximum permissible statutory damages within the judge’s discretion. The download of each song was considered an infringement and was multiplied by the $150,000 in damages that could be awarded under the Act. The judge, within the limits of the Act, found for the plaintiffs, a large record company, and ordered that the defendant pay $3 million. Unfortunately, when the woman declared personal bankruptcy after the decision the damages were not subject to discharge because they were considered a willful and malicious injury. Thus, her infringement and the grossly excessive damages would follow her throughout the bankruptcy proceedings and for the rest of her life.

The Bankruptcy Act was enacted with the purpose of giving debtors a fresh start. So, in the hypothetical above, the single mother who downloaded a minimal twenty songs off the Internet, if done so without intent, would not be burdened for the rest of her life by the $3 million judgment against her if she declared bankruptcy. In fact, under the Bankruptcy Code, even the presumption is in favor of the debtor, meaning that the record company would have to prove that the single mother’s infringement was willful and malicious. Nevertheless, because of changing definitions of willful and malicious under the Bankruptcy Code, and various judicial interpretations of their definitions within the Copyright Act, the single mother above may be liable for the full judgment.

In my note, I will first look at the specific qualifications needed for dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy proceedings. One exception to discharge of debts is “willful and malicious injury,” which sets forth a bar denying discharge of debts resulting from any injury done in an intentional manner. This exception is applied in a two-step manner by courts: first, they determine whether the behavior was done willfully; second, they determine whether the conduct at issue was done maliciously. While the definition of willfulness has not been contested, maliciousness has been controversial.

Prior to the current standard, the definition of maliciousness included reckless behavior. This made its scope much broader than was intended, as evidenced by the case law and legislative history. The current standard, articulated by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kawaauhau v. Geiger, only includes actual knowledge rather than recklessness.

Nevertheless, the Copyright Act, which has implications for discharge in bankruptcy proceedings, still uses a recklessness standard in its definition of willful. Thus, if one infringes a copyright willfully, and such infringement is then potentially subject to discharge, a bankruptcy judge has to determine whether the willful infringement meets the copyright standard as well as the bankruptcy standard.

In the case of copyright infringement, a copyright owner may either elect to pursue actual damages or statutory damages provided for under the Copyright Act. Willful copyright infringement, under the Copyright Act, provides for the maximum of statutory damages at $150,000 per infringement within the court’s discretion. Such statutory damages have become increasingly problematic in intellectual property litigation. Although the courts have reformed their standard from a per-infringement scheme to a work-infringed scheme, an infringement can result in substantial statutory awards. Such damages, particularly those against individuals, can be unreasonably financially burdensome. If the court determines that the infringement was willful within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code, resulting debts will not be discharged and that judgment will follow the individual indefinitely.

[view abstract]|[download PDF]

When Sippy-Cups Go Bad: Making Sense of Hakim v. Cannon Avent

By Robert Sleeper

The Hakim patent infringement case created a considerable confusion as patent practitioners struggle to understand the CAFC holding and the potential impact on their clients and practice. Hakim articulated limits on the inventor’s ability to broaden the scope of an invention through continuation applications. A thorough analysis of the confusing Hakim opinion reveals various potential approaches that confirm the CAFC’s analysis. The court focused on a prosecution disclaimer and did not address other well established laws surrounding claim construction, the written description requirement, or continuation practice support that could have invalidated the patent. As a result of Hakim, many issued patents may be invalidated in court if prosecution history reveals insufficiently clear rescissions of patent scope disclaimers in parent applications. The Hakim opinion should not surprise practitioners as it remains another, in a stream of recent cases, which weaken the United States patent system by imposing costly and onerous patent prosecution requirements on inventors and practitioners.

[view abstract]|[download PDF]