January 31, 2011 - Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Cordis Corp. have been ordered to pay $482 million to Bruce Saffran, a doctor from New Jersey, for infringing his patent on a cardiac stent.
“It is insanity to repeatedly do the same thing and expect a different result.” (Albert Einstein) This applies to the law as well as to physics. (Alaska Stock LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company et al.)
Sometimes a little, overlooked detail can bite you where you sit. (Gordon-Darby Systems, Inc. v. Applus Technologies, Inc.)
If a claim in a reissued or re-examined patent is not “substantially identical” in scope to the same claim in the underlying, previously issued patent, a defense of “intervening rights” may arise with respect to infringement of that claim. In other words, if an amendment results in a substantial change in claim scope, the patentee may not be entitled to damages despite the infringement of the amended claim. This is well-settled law.
GPC's Alexander Poltorak was correct in his prediction, in a previous interview, that Broadcom would be among the next companies to settle with Wi-LAN after the Canadian patent holding company settled with Intel earlier this month. Wi-LAN announced the Broadcom settlement on January 20, and the agreement will be finalized within the next few weeks.
Alexander Poltorak is quoted in "Wi-LAN shares soar on news of Intel deal" (Financial Post, January 18, 2010). Commenting on a prediction that Broadcom Corp. and Atheros Communications Inc. would be the next to settle among the many companies Wi-LAN sued, Dr. Poltorak said, "I would bet on the case settling [before trial]."
"Wi-LAN settles patent dispute with world's biggest chipmaker, Intel" (Canadian Business Online, January 14, 2011) - Alexander Poltorak comments on what the Intel settlement - and the number of patents at suit - means for Wi-LAN's future litigation.
In part, Dr. Poltorak says, "Juries aren't always sympathetic when there are so many patents involved, and it's less risky to settle such a dispute."
January 17, 2011 - Wi-LAN, a patent holding company based in Ottawa, Canada, announced on January 14 that it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Intel to end the litigation that the two companies had pending in U.S. District Courts in Texas and California.
Alexander Poltorak was briefly quoted in "Intel, WiLAN settle infringement suit" (NationalPost.com, January 15, 2011):
"Alexander Poltorak, chief executive of General Patent Corp., a patent advisory firm, said the amount paid was likely substantial. He said it was likely other defendants would now settle as well."
"Wi-LAN settles patent dispute with world biggest chipmaker, Intel" (680news.com, January 14, 2011) - Alexander Poltorak was one of several IP experts interviewed about the Wi-LAN and Intel settlement, which is significant because of the number of patents involved and the size of Intel compared to Wi-LAN.
"It's certainly a case of David versus Goliath," Poltorak says in the article.
Alexander Poltorak discusses the effect that settlement with a major infringer has on subsequent patent litigation in "Intel settles with WiLAN over patent litigation" (Reuters.com, January 14, 2011).
"Intel settles with WiLAN over patent litigation" (Portfolio.com, January 14, 2011) - GPC's Alexander Poltorak talks about the significance of WiLAN's settlement with Intel, saying that it will probably encourage other defendants to follow suit. "When the biggest defendant settles, it starts a domino effect and everyone else follows," Dr. Poltorak said.
"Some clarity on the Paul Allen/Interval Licensing lawsuit" (ZDNet.com, December 30, 2010), an interview that ZDNet conducted with Alexander Poltorak - "one of the country's top patent [experts]" - sheds light on the motivations behind Paul Allen’s lawsuit against Google, Apple, Staples, and others.
January 13, 2011 - iLOR LLC, a Kentucky-based Internet company, may have lost its patent infringement case against Google Inc.
“… infringement requires a party to perform … each and every step … of a claimed method … where the actions of multiple parties combine to perform the steps of a claimed method, the claim is directly infringed if one party exercises ‘control or direction’ over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party, i.e. the ‘mastermind’ … instructing users on the use of … [a computer-implemented] method constitute[s] insufficient evidence of control to establish … infringement.” This is WELL ESTABLISHED law.
January 11, 2011 - For all the fuss about non-practicing entities (NPEs), and all the proposed patent reforms aimed at controlling them, they are still winning the largest damages awards on average in patent infringement cases.
That was the finding of the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's 2010 Patent Litigation Study, which also revealed that: