Search

Over the last decade, courts have applied increasingly stringent standards to the evidence used to determine patent damages. While this has reduced the risk of awards untethered to the facts, the current focus on strictly comparable licenses covering technology similar to the patent that resemble one-way, royalty-bearing "hypothetical licenses" specified by law has created its own problems, particularly in the valuation of component patents, many of which are incorporated into a single product. The rejection of what we refer to as "semi-comparables"-licenses that deviate in some significant way from the terms of the hypothetical license-has led to distorted incentives, unpredictability, and the exclusion of many of the ex ante transactions that best reflect the incremental value of the invention. We believe that the wholesale exclusion of such licenses is wrong-the problem is not that certain licenses are insufficiently comparable but that courts need better approaches to properly and flexibly interpret evidence of comparables and semi-comparable licenses. Framed in this way, the solution is not to exclude licenses but instead to apply an inclusive but disciplined approach to reasonable royalty determinations that prioritizes objective evidence of a patent's incremental value even in the form of traditionally excluded "semi-comparable" transactions like technology (as opposed to "patent") licenses and sales. Though courts have been reluctant to use semi-comparables because of a lack of objective information about their fonnation, we begin to address this void, drawing upon the collective wisdom of licensing lawyers we interviewed, the nearly two-decade-long career of one of us as a licensing lawyer, and studies of thousands of actual licenses. When a reasonable, evidence-based estimate or upper bound cannot be derived, we consider the expanded use of tailored injunctions, assuming the other eBay elements are met. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The courts in several common law jurisdictions have adopted a causal potency criterion for the purposes of apportioning damages for contributory negligence. It has recently been suggested that Canadian courts should follow suit. This article explores the causal potency criterion. It is argued that the criterion has been left unexplained with the result that it is an empty concept. Moreover, no compelling justification has been offered in support of taking causal potency into account. Accordingly, adopting the causal potency criterion would be a retrograde step for Canadian tort law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the factors to consider by a non-settling defendant with regard to the apportionment of settlements and setoff circumstances in Illinois.

The article discusses the author's claim that the Georgia Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's apportionment statute in the 2015 case Zaldivar v. Prickett prohibits employers from using America's respondeat superior legal doctrine to defend against direct negligence claims. According to the article, Georgia's apportionment statute requires juries to apportion fault to all persons or entities who contributed to a plaintiff's injury. Majority and minority rules are assessed.

The article discusses the author's claim that the Georgia Supreme Court should clarify that the apportionment of liability statute requires defendants to identify nonparties, and that the defendants must allege and present evidence on all elements of a cause of action in order to include a nonparty on a verdict form that allows a jury to apportion fault to a nonparty as of 2016. Legal interpretations and precedent are examined, along with the due process case Double View Ventures LLC v. Polite.

In most of the common-law world, legislation provides for damages to be apportioned where the claimant is guilty of contributory negligence. This legislation gives judges considerable latitude to determine the extent to which damages should be diminished for contributory negligence. It imposes what will be called a system of 'discretionary apportionment'. This paper draws attention to the fact that, although most common-law jurisdictions are, by virtue of their apportionment legislation, in the thrall of the paradigm of discretionary apportionment, there are many, varied departures from this paradigm. This paper classifies these departures (which will be called fixed apportionment rules'), emphasises that they conflict with the apportionment legislation and considers how the conflicts ought to be resolved. An important conclusion reached is that it can plausibly be argued that the landmark decision in Froom v Butcher, at least as it has been understood in subsequent cases, was decided per incuriam. Froom sits uncomfortably with the apportionment legislation. Attention is then turned to the arguments for and against a discretionary system of apportionment as opposed to a system that incorporates more fixed apportionment rules. It is contended that much stands to be gained from introducing more fixed apportionment rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at the decision of Great Britain Supreme Court in the case Jackson v Murray related to apportionment of damages for the contributory negligence in a traffic accident. It mentions that two factors that need to be considered in determining the apportionment of damages for contributory negligence such as causal potency of parties with their acts that cause damage and their blameworthiness. It also mentions that wrongdoer is responsible for damage on account of breach of duty.

The article examines evolution of nonparty fault apportionment in Arkansas. Topics discussed include Johnson v. Rockwell Automation wherein the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the change in substantive law, the Arkansas Comparative Fault Act where a defendant may not seek contribution from a nonparty and liability in case of missing or insolvent nonparty. Other topics include ProAssurance Indemnity Co. v. Metheny court case in which Dr. Badih Adada operated worng side of Cody Metheny's brain.

The article discusses the International Court of Justice's (ICJ's) ruling in the 2014 case Peru v. Chile which deals with a dispute over a maritime boundary between the two nations. It states that the court applied a rule of equitable delimitation located in Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in this case. The ICJ's jurisdiction is examined, along with an equitable apportionment principle and the War of the Pacific involving Peru and Chile in 1879.

Applying the Fairchild exception in Barker, Lord Hoffmann sought to justify apportionment of liability by reformulating the gist of the negligence action as the risk of mesothelioma rather than the mesothelioma itself. This paper examines the notion of risk to show that it cannot coherently be recognised as damage. By distinguishing risk from the related concept of probability, it is apparent that risk is a forward-looking concept that is incompatible with the role in which it is cast in the backward-looking causation inquiry when mesothelioma is an essential ingredient of liability. This paper goes on to consider whether 'pure' risk could form the gist of a negligence action and suggests that it lacks the moral significance to constitute damage. Furthermore, the damage requirement would be subsumed into the breach inquiry, effectively being lost as a distinct element of the negligence inquiry. This is incompatible with the traditional loss-based model of negligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the apportionment of comparative fault in Florida. Topics include the degree of liability that can be placed on a negligent tortfeasor, the development of comparative fault law in Florida, and joint and several liability. Information is provided on the contributory negligence and causation.

As a matter of case law, the US courts would apportion the share of the copyright equally among co-authors, after a finding of co-authorship. The federal Copyright Act 1976 was the first legislative effort to statutorily provide for the doctrine of co-authorship in the US jurisprudence. However the 1976 Act neither clarifies the nature of co-authorship or how to apportion the shares, nor does legislative literature help. Courts are left with the task of clarification. Section 2 draws out two possible rationales behind the apportionment rule (the Equal Division Rule) and explores the difficulties. Section 3 proposes two alternatives (the Proportionate Rule) to the current apportionment rule based on the Default Theory analysis. For both works comprising quantifiable inseparable contributions and works comprising quantifiable interdependent contributions, the Penalty Default Theory favors the Proportionate Rule over the Equal Division Rule. Section 4 explores the interaction between the theories for co-authorship and the proposed alternative Proportionate Rule, and concludes that if the apportionment rule were instead devised to avoid the over-rewarding issue, as is the proposed Proportionate Rule, the courts would better conform to the statute and stick to a uniform test for co-authorship. Section 5 summarizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article argues that, if the United States was going to have a workable, national income tax, the Sixteenth Amendment was legally and politically necessary in 1913, when it was ratified, and that the Amendment remains significant today. The Amendment provides that "taxes on incomes" need not be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, as would otherwise be required for direct taxes. An apportioned income tax would be an absurdity, and, without the Amendment, Congress could not enact an unapportioned tax on income from property, the sort of tax that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. The Pollock result was changed by the Sixteenth Amendment, but the core of the case has not been overturned. Indeed, in 2012, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts favorably cited Pollock on a constitutional issue. All of that is to say that, without the Sixteenth Amendment, an unapportioned national tax on the income from property would continue to be invalid today. The Amendment is also important for what it does not say. It provides no protection for an unapportioned national tax on property if the tax is not treated as one "on incomes." Such a tax on property would therefore be subject to the apportionment rule and, as a result, would make the tax difficult, and perhaps impossible, to implement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented on liability rules in regards to artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous thinking machines as of March 2014, focusing on the legal aspects of machine decision-making and Internet company Google Inc.'s reported work in developing driver-less automobiles. Director Stanley Kubrick’s space film "2001: A Space Odyssey" is mentioned, along with tort law and the possible apportionment of liability among product designers, programmers, and manufacturers of automated goods.

Every time spouses sign joint returns, knowingly or not they accept joint and several liability, meaning that either spouse may be held liable for all of the tax due on the joint return. Although joint and several liability facilitates tax collection, it may conflict with a spouse's claims to have signed the return while being lied to, abused, or manipulated. The question for Congress is how to balance these competing demands. Innocent spouse relief provides some tax relief for spouses Congress does not believe should be jointly and severally liable. The existence of this relief also offers an opportunity to explore how the government views married women, as wives have always composed the lion's share of seekers and recipients of innocent spouse relief. The relief currently provided is both over- and under-inclusive by (1) not offering relief to all spouses or former spouses who are unable to assess the validity of their returns and (2) offering relief to some who both knew of, and helped orchestrate, tax evasion. This Article argues that the existing innocent spouse relief regime should be replaced with one that respects joint filers' agency when signing joint returns and affords relief only when a joint filer was unable to exercise that agency. In the event that a spouse is coerced into signing the return, relief needs to be speedier and less burdensome in application than under today's law. This approach would increase the equity of the tax system and reduce the administrative costs on both the taxpayer and the government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the nonparty-fault apportionment and its development under jurisprudence of Arkansas. It discusses the decision Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. of the Arkansas Supreme Court which results in change in substantive law to several-only liability. It also discusses several other court cases including Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., Pro Assurance Indemnity Co. v. Metheny, and St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center v. Shelton that tried to fill procedural gap.

The article focuses on the withdrawal of the innocent spouse affirmative defense and the right to intervene in innocent spouse cases. Topics include the provisions of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the limitations to participation of the nonrequesting spouse, and the normal rule of joint and several liability.

The article presents information on the patent cases including apportionment in the U.S. It informs about a court case between Lucent Technologies Inc. and Microsoft Corp. in 2008 in which Microsoft appealed a 357 million U.S. dollars damage award for an infringing feature in Microsoft Outlook. It addresses several apportionment cases including claims by biotechnology industry and legal scholars.

The article discusses administrative discretion in determining and apportioning liability in cases of property or environmental damage according to German administrative laws. The author outlines questions of legal responsibility for public dangers based on possession or action. He also examines guidelines for liability apportionment and the imposition of fines and damages. Laws considered include the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (Law of Administrative Procedure, VwVfG), the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code, BGB), and the Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz (Federal Soil Protection Act, BBodSchG).

The article offers information on the amendments introduced by the Georgia Supreme Court into apportionment and joint laws which comes under the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.). It discusses the court case McReynolds v. Krebs in order to explain that apportioned damages are not subject to the rule of joint and liabilities. It informs that plaintiff has to bear the burden of uncollectible share of damages as per the rule.

This paper focuses on the subject of concurrent delay from a general contractor (GC)-subcontractor perspective. When there is a concurrent delay by multiple subcontractors, or between the GC and other subcontractor(s), there has not been a uniform approach as to how the liquidated damages are apportioned. Previous research seems to ignore this issue. This paper first reviews some relevant court cases. Using a warehouse project as a case study, it then examines different practices that the GC could take in apportioning damages of concurrent delays to both himself/herself as well as to the responsible subcontractors. Results are very inconsistent between and within the apportionment practices. This supports an alternative hypothesis that apportionment is an important issue. Practitioners should specify which apportionment practice will be used and under what circumstances it will be applied in their subcontracts. Researchers may develop a more consistent and reliable approach for this type of apportionment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study which evaluated the significance of the quit rent system as a source of revenue for the colonial government in New South Wales. It discusses the English of Tenures 1660 and depicts the authority of the Crown to reserve quit rents in grants of lands as essential to the creation of a tenurial nexus between grantor and grantee, which was challenged in Attorney-General (NSW) v. Brown case. It looks at the administrative function in the collection of rents, the remission and apportionment of quit rents and the legal action for enforcement of quit rents, citing the Real Property Limitation Act 1833 provisions. The study revealed the failure to justify the significance of the quit rents as a source of revenue for the colonial government.

Editors' Synopsis: This Article discusses recent proposals aimed at unifying the law of wills and nonprobate transfers. The author notes that default rules of construction present the strongest case for unification, but contends that distinctions between wills and nonprobate transfers remain important in the areas of formalities and restrictions affecting third-party rights. The author concludes that the policy goal should be to allow wills and nonprobate transfers to operate smoothly as complementary methods of deathtime wealth transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents several papers presented at the Dan B. Dobbs Conference on Economic Tort Law at the University of Arizona on March 3 to 4, 2006. The papers discuss the apportionment of liability as an important development in tort law since liability insurance. It also discusses how the tort law addresses economic loss from the different views of human behavior, economic and legal principles.

The article presents comments on the applicability of apportionment to the economic torts law under the proposition of the Restatement. The author understands that the Restatement proposition is intended to be a statement in Section 8 of the economic torts to be titled "The Economic Loss Rule." The author states that the main concept is not a rule but an inhibition against liability in the negligence for economic impairment.

Examines several core questions in the allocation process in the United States. Discussion on insurance issues related to allocation questions; Theoretical framework for the basic approaches to the allocation process; Method of secondary apportionment; Approaches to the allocation models; Examination on rationales supporting assigning orphan shares to one party or another.

The article focuses on the apportionment of income between between different parties involved in monetary transactions. Questions arise about the division or apportionment of the income or profits of a thing bought or sold between a buyer and a seller. Specific cases of apportionment include rent, taxes, insurance, coupons, interest and dividends. A conveyance, devise, or bequest of specific investments must be interpreted to ascertain whether accrued income is intended to be conveyed to the life tenant or beneficiary. Apportionment is an issue in case of purchase and sale of investments during the trust.

Explores the decision in the case "Norwood v. Baker," which hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. does not prohibit assessments on real estate in excess of special benefits. Adoption of the rule of apportionment; Merits of the case; Facts of the case.

Discusses legal issues and court decisions in the U.S. Facts of the case "Frank v. Mangum," involving mob domination of a trial as a violation of the fourteenth amendment; Merits of the case "Williamson v. Williamson," which focuses on apportionment of estate income between life tenant and remainderman under a general residuary trust; Judgment on the case "Hunt v. Rousmanier," regarding powers coupled with an interest.

Discusses the decision of the court in a case which deals with the issue of whether principal payments to holders of mortgage participation certificates are apportionable or not. Background of the case; Doctrine on which some courts base their decision to allow apportionment of the payments in the principal case; Situation in which apportionment of the payments in the principal case is allowed.

Focuses on several court cases concerning the principle of apportionment between life tenant and remainderman under income and corpus of trusts. Heighe v. Littig; Jordan v. Jordan; Kinmonth v. Brigham.

Presents a court case regarding the apportionment of stock dividends between life tenant and remainderman. Details of the case; Stance of the state of Massachusetts on the rights of the life tenant; Terms of the rule instituted by the state of Pennsylvania on equitable apportionment.