Search for: "IN RE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY"
Results 61 - 80
of 171
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2013, 9:11 pm
Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. [read post]
30 May 2010, 12:49 pm
In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir. 2007). [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 10:00 pm
Currently, under the standard set out by the Federal Circuit in In re Seagate Technology LLC, an enhanced damages award under § 284 requires clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, and (2) that this objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 8:49 am
In 2007, sitting en banc, it established a heightened standard for willfulness that included an inquiry into whether a defendant's actions were "objectively reckless" in In re Seagate Technology LLC. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 1:51 pm
”In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371(Fed. [read post]
16 Jun 2012, 11:55 am
” Judge Gajarsa began his opinion for the panel majority by noting that In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 2:17 pm
” The White House also expressed its approval for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re Seagate Technology, which, in the administration’s words: “eliminated the ‘duty of care’ and held that enhanced damages are only appropriate where the infringer acts with reckless disregard of the patentee’s rights. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 9:55 pm
In addition, the Federal Circuit rejected the defendant's contention that In re Seagate changed the evidentiary burden for proving intent in the context of inducing infringement. [read post]
27 Nov 2008, 4:07 am
Back it up Technology is awesome, but losing your data sucks. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 3:18 am
The Court instructed the jury using the objective recklessness standard from In re Seagate Techs., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 1:23 pm
The patent owner in In re Seagate Technology (Fed. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 8:48 am
” In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 7:27 am
The court therefore instructed the district court on remand to determine the amount of royalty due on the defendant's compulsory license under the patent going forward.The court briefly mentioned the issue of willful infringement after In re Seagate Technology, LLC, but only noted that there was no evidence of objective recklessness by the defendant and therefore the finding of no willful infringement was appropriate. [read post]
Plaintiff's Failure to Seek Preliminary Injunction Sinks Willfulness Claim as to Post-Filing Conduct
15 Sep 2010, 12:09 pm
Even assuming [In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. [read post]
4 Aug 2009, 1:51 pm
The Patent Reform Act of 2009 also proposes: changing the patent filing system to a first to file system; revising the prior art definition to include inventions that were "otherwise available to the public"; permitting a company to file an application on behalf of an inventor when there is an obligation to assign; eliminating interferences; expanding inter partes reexamination; codifying the 2007 In re Seagate Technology, LLC decision's standard for willful… [read post]
19 Nov 2011, 11:34 am
Seagate won a $525,000 trade secret award in an arbitration against Western Digital, which Seagate accused of misappropriating trade secrets through a former Seagate employee. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 6:41 am
The decision rejects the objective-recklessness standard of Seagate (Fed. [read post]
19 Jun 2016, 10:02 pm
Pair of cases The Court used two lower-court decisions to announce its repudiation of the Federal Circuit’s infringer-friendly approach to punitive damages in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360 (2007) (en banc). [read post]
29 Jan 2007, 10:39 pm
(order, 01/26/2007): dismissal of appeal for lack of jurisdiction, filing of notice of appeal by non-prevailing party prior to dismissal of outstanding counterclaims by the prevailing party, no actual case or controversyIn re Seagate Technology (order, 01/26/2007, non-precedential) (order deciding petition for writ of mandamus is appropriate for en banc consideration): appeal shall address questions of whether or not "a party's assertion of the advice of counsel… [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 6:58 pm
As discussed in Lucent Technologies, Inc., v. [read post]
