Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart PLLC
Newsletter – Volume 23, Issue 2
Share on Social
2022 Recap – Largest Patent Damages Awards
By Art Hallman
1. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp.: VLSI was awarded $948 million after a federal jury in Texas found that Intel infringed VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,606,983 (“the ‘983 Patent”). The ‘983 Patent relates to microchip technology and, specifically, to improved computer processor performance via an improved transaction ordering policy in which individual occurrences of access requests can specify whether or not the associated transaction is to be performed in order. In lay terms, the technology improves computer performance by putting computer processor traffic “in the fast lane.” Less buffering means more binge watching!
2. Complete Genomics v. Illumina: Complete Genomics (“CG”) was awarded $333.8 million after a federal jury in Delaware found that Illumina infringed CG’s U.S. Patent No. 9,222,132 (“the ‘132 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,662,473 (“the ‘473 Patent”). The ‘132 Patent and the ‘473 Patent relate generally to DNA sequencing. These types of genetic sequencing technologies are used in research dedicated to treating a wide range of conditions and diseases, including autism, aging, and eating disorders.
3. Ravgen Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America: Ravgen was awarded $272.5 million after a federal jury in Texas found that Labcorp infringed Ravgen’s U.S. Patent No. 7,332,277 (“the ‘277 Patent”). The ‘277 Patent is directed towards methods for detection of genetic conditions like Down syndrome and noninvasive methods of detecting such conditions in utero. Safe methods for early detection of genetic conditions allow parents and health care professionals to better monitor and treat the conditions, providing better quality of life for parents and their children.
4. United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank: United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) was awarded $218 million after a federal jury in Texas found that PNC infringed USAA’s U.S. Patent No. 8,699,779, U.S. Patent No. 8,977,571, U.S. Patent No. 10,482,432, and U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559 (“the USAA Patents”). The USAA Patents relate generally to mobile banking technology for remote check deposit. Who doesn’t want to skip the long line at the bank?!
5. Trustees of Columbia University v. NortonLifeLock: Columbia University was awarded $185 million after a federal jury in Virginia found that Norton infringed Columbia University’s U.S. Patent No. 8,074,115 (“the ‘115 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,601,322 (the ‘322 Patent). These patents relate generally to groundbreaking cybersecurity safeguards. More specifically, they are directed towards methods and systems for detecting anomalous program executions. Early detection is key—especially when it comes to malware!
It seems the high stakes technologies of 2022 involved genetics, computing, and banking. We can’t wait to see what 2023 brings! Also, while 2022 may have been a down year for patent damages awards, 2022 saw a record number of published patent applications—417,922 patent applications published at the US Patent and Trademark Office in 2022. This is an encouraging sign that investment in innovation remains a priority.
Wishing you a happy 2023!
Art Hallman is an associate attorney at Fishman Stewart and practices in the fields of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law. Before attending law school, he worked as an engineer in the oil field service industry and the automotive industry. He holds an B.S. degree in electrical engineering and an MBA.
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
This practice is often called the “Poor Man’s Copyright” and the idea has been around for a long time. The theory is that mailing a copy of a work to yourself will provide you with certain legal rights akin to a copyright registration so long as the envelope remains sealed and bears a postmark by the United States Postal Service.
Public Domain Day is celebrated on January 1st and commemorates the expiration of copyright protection for certain creative works. US copyright law provides the copyright owner with certain exclusive rights for a limited time, after which the works fall into the public domain.
Unlike the Matrix, Star Wars, and Austin Powers, respectively, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, or ChatGPT, is not a robot in disguise or a bot of science fiction. We, the users, provide prompts in text form, and ChatGPT converses in response to the prompts.
Mariah Carey filed a U.S. trademark application attempting to claim trademark rights to “QUEEN OF CHRISTMAS” for a wide range of different goods and services including alcoholic beverages, online retail services, dog collars, musical recordings, body lotions, spa items, Christmas decorations, and even lactose-free milk.
Recently, we filed an application to register the copyright for Finny the Fish. In the United States, and in many other countries, copyright protection arises at the moment a work is fixed in tangible medium. So, why would we take the extra step to register Finny’s copyright?
With the 2022 midterms (almost) in the rearview mirror, political junkies are now free to turn their full attention to the 2024 presidential election. Today’s focus is on the tug of war that can occur when candidates play music at campaign events.
Both trademark law and copyright law may protect your logo, although the protection they provide differs. Trademark law would prohibit the unauthorized use of another’s logo that is sufficiently similar to your logo such that it is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.
In the U.S., copyright protection generally does not extend to “useful” articles, like shoes, but can protect the designs on shoes, like that of the Yeezy Boost 350 sneakers. However, in Italy, the global fashion powerhouse since the 15th century, copyright law can protect shoes—like Moon Boots.
Under US copyright law, in most instances, if an independent designer creates your logo, then the independent designer, not you as the contracting party, would own the copyright.
Consumers have grown accustomed to seeing knock-off costumes based on popular celebrities and movie or book characters. Some of these knock-off costumes, while attempting to skirt intellectual property violations, are providing unexpected humor for shoppers.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
