<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Oops sorry 2002. And yes, in the 21 years that have passed, I
have not learned of even a single instance of even a single
instance of a patent owner getting a pregrant damages award.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/22/2024 11:36 PM, Carl Oppedahl
via Pct wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1f78babe-587d-4255-988d-e98045bbc3ee@oppedahl.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Yes this happened in 2012. In the thirteen years that the law
has permitted such pregrant damages in the US, I have not
learned of even a single instance of a patent owner getting a
pregrant damages award.</p>
<p>To collect such damages, the US law says the patent owner needs
to have <i><b>given notice</b></i> to the infringer during the
pregrant time period. I have to imagine that if such notice
were given, the first thing the infringer would do is get busy
doing a design-around.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/22/2024 11:28 PM, Dan Feigelson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fe9e05fd-5b4b-4858-b568-dcc06648771a@smtp-relay.sendinblue.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<img
src="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/op/3Ol8rORX0y_PZ8t5K2DzM0xCl0LmXw3kf06mtg448BgAR6PjYDDytWXxtC_PrOMKxvbWc4HFkOtg747MLyOoXS7AM40gGOLyiw78H0AktePrbkyzk8MkUN1Tob42Pi2lnR4Yq9XiXjjzKMPOBPAyGEuisNL_xsT-G6Oi7KtonYhzN24PcEfEQuunnrHWkp4IJNz6bCDggYZQwDE"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="1" height="1">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Carl, regarding the first reason: when the USA
implemented publication of patent application at somewhere
around 18 months, it included a provision in the statute
(154(d)) for reasonable royalties back to the date of
publication if the infringed claims were what was
published.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Have there been cases in which such reasonable
royalties based on the 122 publication date were awarded?
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dan<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at
2:02 AM Carl Oppedahl via Pct <<a
href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>This is discussed at some length in Lecture 8 at <a
href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/MOqKCk3o9zRbuCZi_IevvHnEprlipZEyARcmFHLY0DgRxxPzh2HxJpDND89mFhvUzl32hNwV75wNJAmVW3Bt06KOYbLXajehmDyLvqNqCqKAVtmW3kgmabCfBGdxW9IaulyfOh7UfEFvyS8c8_0zZEQtfj3AdyGVtbvncjyRQNApkCocJdxbyyEj5N-QSjyxYHW72oWCRHd2NGoQNI8bCln0O-nSKiewXCpKejBhytSb22arBtQn0ytdzYoXUDlNmmKtwveiRe08UW2NeII3L09ZMKEWi_BA05UGDeNbsZVRm_mJQXzg6OjMogzH-T4p"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://blog.oppedahl.com/the-2022-schwegman-advanced-pct-training/</a>
.</p>
<p>Reason 1 that I talked about in that lecture ...<br>
</p>
<p>Suppose you want to collect pre-grant damages. Well,
the pre-grant damages are predicated on the content of
your published claims. To collect the pre-grant
damages, among other things it has to work out that
the conduct of the infringer is covered by the
published claims.</p>
<p>So now let's imagine you filed a PCT application.
And the ISR/WO shows up and you realize that the
claims as filed are not the claims you will later be
asserting against infringers. Then an Article 19
amendment is the perfect way to arrange for
publication of the claims that you will later be
asserting against infringers. And you will be able to
collect your pre-grant damages based on the Article 19
claims.<br>
</p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>