Replies to post #137069 on Biotech Values

[zipjet]

Well iwfal, it is clear to me that your mental creativity exceeds the normal bounds of remedies that courts recognize.

By proposing that the remedy for past infringement should take the form of a royalty on future sales of non-infringing goods you are asking for a remedy in equity. The district court certainly has equity powers, where supported by pleadings and a request putting the defendants on notice of the demand. Getting the court to impose that remedy to use them is unlikely, IMO. Keep in mind that if the court were to act in equity as you suggest, it would have to keep the case open for adjudication of the ongoing accounting for and payment of the royalties. Judges do not like to sign up for unending cases.

Virtually by definition in order to impose treble damages the courts have to be able to attack assets not directly part of the infringement.

You are mixing obtaining a judgment with collecting it. Courts do not take responsibility for collecting the judgment. They don't even care if it is collectible. There are an array of tools to collect a judgment once it is obtained. Garnishment is a means of reaching assets in the hands of third parties (others - not the judgment debtor).

Again disagree - you are viewing the royalties as compensation for ongoing infringement. Whereas I'd certainly hope that the courts would view it as an attachment of assets as compensation for ongoing and past damages that are unremediable by withdrawal of the infringing product.

Yep - we disagree. The court will determine damages for past infringement and set a dollar amount. The court can also allow future use of the patent and impose a royalty for the use. But to expect that a court will enter a royalty on future sales as a means of redressing infringement damages prior to the judgment is highly unlikely IMO.

ij