‘Murky’ Infringement Theory Undercuts Royalty Claim

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 19 No. 11
Legal and Court Case Update
November 2013

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,194 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
8731 Commercial Physical and Biological Research
541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
intellectual property
patent infringement, reasonable royalty, entire market value rule (EMVR)
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107990
August 1, 2013
US
Federal Court
Connecticut
United States District Court
Dr. Gregory Bell (plaintiffs); Brian Napper (defendants)
Arterton

Summary

District court denies both parties’ motions for new trial, finding an award for “induced infringement” would be based on the very act of infringement that underlies the award for direct infringement and would be double dipping; also since the patented tec ...

See Also

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.

Full Text of Court Cases
August 1, 2013

District court denies both parties’ motions for new trial, finding an award for “induced infringement” would be based on the very act of infringement that underlies the award for direct infringement and would be double dipping; also since the patented tec ...