直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Patentee's Monetary Recovery from an Infringer - A Revisit

December 2016

Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society

By Richard L. Stroup; Kelly C. Lu; Daniel G. Chung

In 1977, the original article was published in this Journal, authored by a younger version of one of the authors, at the start of his legal career. Since then, much has changed. The Federal Circuit was created and given exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. The Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the district courts, and the U.S. Claims Court have published additional precedent, refining the law and its application. Congress has made a few changes to the law, although the majority of controlling statutes and types of available awards remain much the same.3 Yet, since 1977 the interpretation and application of the law has shifted in many ways.

In preparing this revisit, we have started with the original article, while enlarging its scope and reorganizing its approach. The revisit explains the changes in the law and its application and also addresses recoveries and issues that were not presented in the original article. We have focused on controlling statutes and rules and precedent from the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, with the goal of providing a broad overview of the principles and factors that control. We have identified areas where the law of the regional circuits applies. We have cited lower court decisions to identify issues or views that help fill in this overview. In this article, Finnegan attorneys Richard L. Stroup, Cecilia Sanabria, Kelly Lu, and Daniel G. Chung discuss the law and procedures regarding monetary recovery.

Tags

damages, attorney fees, infringement

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Related Professionals

Daniel G. Chung
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4355
Email

Originally printed in Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society  in December 2016. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Seminar

3rd AI, IP, & Legal Forum

June 6, 2026

Shangai

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP