Archives for December 2016

Holly Ford Lewis Joins The Firm As Co-Chair Of Trademark Group

Holly Ford Lewis has joined Oliff PLC as Co-Chair of our Trademark Group.  Holly brings more than 25 years of experience representing clients in intellectual property matters with a focus on trademarks, copyrights and design patents.  Holly’s practice includes:

  • preparing and prosecuting domestic and international trademark applications;
  • enforcing and protecting trademark rights through opposition and cancellation proceedings before the TTAB and, when necessary, through litigation; and
  • drafting and negotiating licenses, coexistence agreements and settlement agreements.

Holly also regularly counsels clients on a wide range of IP issues.  Such as including brand development and protection, IP focused social media policies, domain name development and protection, trademark piracy and counterfeit issues, and IP due diligence related to complex mergers and acquisitions.

Holly is actively involved in the Anti-Counterfeiting Committee of the International Trademark Association (INTA), as well as several local bar associations.  Holly is also proficient in French and Spanish.

We welcome Holly to the firm and we are confident that her experience and expertise will help us better serve our clients.

 

Unanimous Supreme Court Sides with Samsung and Reshapes Design Patent Infringement Damages

December 6, 2016 – In Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777 (U.S. December 6, 2016), the Supreme Court interpreted 35 U.S.C. §289, which governs damages for design patent infringement.  Section 289 states that a person who applies a patented design to any “article of manufacture” is liable for infringement and “shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit.”  In this context, “article of manufacture” has historically been understood to mean the entire product covered by the design patent.  However, in today’s unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned a Federal Circuit decision applying that historical understanding to Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s smartphone design patents and held that “the term ‘article of manufacture’ is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not.”  As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit to (i) reassess which part(s) of Samsung’s smartphone constitute(s) the “article of manufacture” and (ii) recalculate damages accordingly.

Oliff PLC will issue a Special Report addressing this decision and its potential impact in greater detail.