1 / 12

Patent Damages II

Patent Damages II. Patent Law 4.20.04. United States Patent 4,373,847 Hipp ,   et al. February 15, 1983 Releasable locking device

isabel
Download Presentation

Patent Damages II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Patent Damages II Patent Law 4.20.04

  2. United States Patent 4,373,847 Hipp ,   et al.February 15, 1983 Releasable locking device A releasable locking device is provided for securing a parked vehicle to an adjacent upright structure. The device includes a first means mounted on the upright structure and a second means mounted on the first means for vertical movement relative thereto between operative and inoperative mode positions. When in an operative mode, the second means is in a raised position and interlockingly engages a portion of the parked vehicle. A third means is provided which releasably retains the second means in an operative mode and prevents accidental movement of the second means from an operative mode position to a lower inoperative mode position. The first means includes guides for restricting movement of the second means to a substantially vertical path. Inventors: Hipp; Steven J. (Milwaukee, WI); Hahn; Norbert (Cudahy, WI) Assignee: Rite-Hite Corporation (Cudahy, WI) Appl. No.: 260340Filed: May 4, 1981

  3. Proper Compensation • PP. 1101 et seq: “Property rule” vs. “liability rule” • Injunction vs damages; K vs property • Majority: Higher damages appropriate here; foreseeable harm to patentee’s market • Dissent: No, good reasons for lower damages here: (1) Reward for commercialization, not “fallow” inventions; (2) Injury to property right, not market

  4. Grain Processing • 4 production processes; one (# 4) non-infringing • “Practically instantaneous” transition from infringing process to noninfringing one • See why this is important? • But Process 4 was not actually used . . .

  5. Other damage theories • Price erosion • Market share rule • Lost sales of related but unpatented products • Post-expiration sales Not just lost sales, but lower price—because infringer provides price competition Larry Solum, USD Law School

  6. Other damage theories • Price erosion • Market share rule • Lost sales of related but unpatented products • Post-expiration sales Relative market share of patentee relative to non-infringers would remain the same without the infringer.

  7. Other damage theories • Price erosion • Market share rule • Lost sales of related but unpatented products • Post-expiration sales Components and other related products which are normally sold with the patented product.

  8. Other damage theories • Price erosion • Market share rule • Lost sales of related but unpatented products • Post-expiration sales Head-start theory. Competitor cannot enter market immediately post-expiration.

More Related