In this issue of Insights, we examine the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, and the concept and application of “willfulness” with regard to patent infringement and trademark infringement. The authors summarize three cases: Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., et al. and Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research v. Kite Pharma, Inc., and Romag Fasteners, Inc., Petitioner v. Fossil, Inc., et. al., Case No. 18-1233 (Supreme Court).
For more information about the issues addressed in these cases, download the newsletter below.
China refines how to determine patent damages
China’s patent law was promulgated in 1984 and amended three times prior to 2020 (in 1992, 2000, and 2008). On October 17, 2020, the National People’s Congress...