The issue at the heart of Sullivan v. Bristol Film Studios is not merely the trivial amount of damages. Instead, the analysis from this recent case puts the principle of proportionality front and centre.
The issue at the heart of Sullivan v. Bristol Film Studios is not merely the trivial amount of damages. Instead, the analysis from this recent case puts the principle of proportionality front and centre.
Normally, doing something that breaks the law earns you a punishment, including a fine, community service, or even imprisonment. However, when Apotex Inc., a large generic pharmaceutical company, began producing and selling a drug that Servier Laboratories Limited, another large pharmaceutical company, had patented, Apotex was awarded $17.5 million.
In Slater v Wimmer [2012] EWPCC 7, a cameraman claims copyright infringement after a skydiver provided some footage of what was billed as “the first tandem skydive over Mount Everest” to a Danish television show. As an aside, it turns out the skydive occurred about 20 km away from Everest and the adventure company that [...]
In July of 2008, William Kostuj filed an international patent application titled “Method Of Forming A Golf Swing And Equipment”. The UK Intellectual Property Office [IPO] has denied the application that sought to patent a means of developing a golfer’s swing style without the use of a golf club. The full decision may be read [...]