ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Wilful infringement"
m (→Cases of wilful infringement: * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/using-reexaminations-to-avoid-willfulness-damages.html Using Reexaminations to Avoid Willfulness Damages], Patently-o) |
(and the judge can order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees.<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ftisapresentation/RavicherFTISAPresentation.mp3 (time:13:45)</ref>) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Wilful infringement''' is when | + | '''Wilful infringement''' is when someone knows that an idea is patented, and proceeds to use that idea without having gotten permission. |
This concept may have other names, or may not exist, in various jurisdictions, but it exists in the [[European Union]], and "the willful infringement doctrine" exists in the [[USA]]. It may also be called a "bad faith infringement". | This concept may have other names, or may not exist, in various jurisdictions, but it exists in the [[European Union]], and "the willful infringement doctrine" exists in the [[USA]]. It may also be called a "bad faith infringement". | ||
| − | + | ==In the USA== | |
| − | In the USA, the 2007 ''In re Seagate'' is seen as having made it more difficult to have an infringement judged "wilful". | + | The question of whether an infringement is wilful is usually important regarding the fine to be paid by a defendant who loses. In the USA, a court can increase the damages to ''up to'' three times the original amount in the case of wilful infringement, and the judge can order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees.<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ftisapresentation/RavicherFTISAPresentation.mp3 (time:13:45)</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | In the USA, the 2007 ''In re Seagate'' case is seen as having made it more difficult to have an infringement judged "wilful". | ||
==Cases of wilful infringement== | ==Cases of wilful infringement== | ||
* [[I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)]] | * [[I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)]] | ||
* [[Stac v. Microsoft (1993, USA)]] | * [[Stac v. Microsoft (1993, USA)]] | ||
| + | * [[Calculating infringement damages in the USA]] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/using-reexaminations-to-avoid-willfulness-damages.html Using Reexaminations to Avoid Willfulness Damages], Patently-o | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/using-reexaminations-to-avoid-willfulness-damages.html Using Reexaminations to Avoid Willfulness Damages], Patently-o | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
| + | {{page footer}} | ||
[[Category:Understanding the patent system]] | [[Category:Understanding the patent system]] | ||
[[Category:wilful infringement|*]] | [[Category:wilful infringement|*]] | ||
| − | |||
Revision as of 00:29, 15 February 2010
Wilful infringement is when someone knows that an idea is patented, and proceeds to use that idea without having gotten permission.
This concept may have other names, or may not exist, in various jurisdictions, but it exists in the European Union, and "the willful infringement doctrine" exists in the USA. It may also be called a "bad faith infringement".
In the USA
The question of whether an infringement is wilful is usually important regarding the fine to be paid by a defendant who loses. In the USA, a court can increase the damages to up to three times the original amount in the case of wilful infringement, and the judge can order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees.[1]
In the USA, the 2007 In re Seagate case is seen as having made it more difficult to have an infringement judged "wilful".
Cases of wilful infringement
- I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
- Stac v. Microsoft (1993, USA)
- Calculating infringement damages in the USA
