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

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

IAM Live: Trade Secret Strategy USA

November 1, 2026

San Jose

Charitable

2026 ALYN Hospital Wheels of Love Ride

November 8-12, 2026

Northern District

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

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