<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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.Â
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>
</body>
</html>