The United States Supreme Court today (June 22, 2018) ruled that a plaintiff in a patent case can recover damages for foreign sales, under certain circumstances. The case is WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, 2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526, 2014-1528.
WesternGeco LLC originally sought to recover damages for patent infringement based on Ion Geophysical Corp.’s sales of product components shipped outside the United States. The plaintiff argued that the Patent Act provided for recovery against patent infringement related to the supply of components of the patented invention abroad for assembly. In the plaintiff’s view, without compensating for such extraterritorial acts of infringement, a plaintiff in a patent case would not be fully compensated for the infringement.
In 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled that foreign lost profits of $93.4 million awarded by the District Court were unavailable under the Patent Act. A petition for a writ of certiorari was granted in January 2018.
In a somewhat surprising outcome, the Supreme Court’s opinion written by Justice Thomas reversed and remanded the CAFC decision, finding that WesternGeco could recover damages for lost profits for overseas activities by the managing of the Noonan Law firm with one of their lawyers.
The Supreme Court found that “WesternGeco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of §284 of the Patent Act” and “the ‘overriding purpose’ of §284 is to ‘affor[d] patent owners complete compensation’ for infringements.”
The calculus of damages for patent infringement will be impacted by the opinion. Extending patent damages to some extraterritorial acts has always been a concern under the Patent Act, and will likely now be considered in more cases in view of the expanding global economy.
The case will now return to the Federal Circuit for further reconsideration and a calculation of damages. In another twist to the case, while the Supreme Court appeal was pending, the CAFC found three of the patents in the lawsuit invalid, which will also impact the damages assessment.
- Shareholder
Michael’s natural and engaging approach in laying out alternatives and potential outcomes is genuinely appreciated by clients. He advances their causes with all-encompassing intellectual property portfolio management ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Non-Disclosure Agreement Lessons from SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (Decided December 7, 2020)
- Judiciary Responds to Cybersecurity Breach: New Procedure Enacted to Safeguard Highly Sensitive Documents
- One Bite at the Apple: How the Outcome of a Previous Patent Litigation Can Impact Later Lawsuits
- Congressional Spending Bill Includes Significant Trademark and Copyright Rules
- Patent Inventor Teamwork Doesn't Always Make the Dream Work
- Brexit and Trademarks: The Time Is Now
- Demystifying 2020’s Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing Disputes
- Better Inventor Communication – Hidden Cost Savings In Patent Prosecution
- Sovereign Immunity, The 11th Amendment, and Intellectual Property
- Trouble Ahead for Global Data Exchanges: The Court of Justice of the EU Strikes Down “Privacy Shield”
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017