000041980 000__ 01107cam\a22002535i\4500
000041980 001__ 41980
000041980 003__ SzGeWIPO
000041980 005__ 20240708145854.0
000041980 008__ 200622s2017\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000041980 022__ $$a0736-7694
000041980 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000041980 041__ $$aeng
000041980 1001_ $$aCoughlin, Timothy
000041980 24503 $$aApple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.$$bEconomics of Design Patent Trolling
000041980 264_1 $$a[New York City, New York] :$$bYeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,$$c2017.
000041980 300__ $$a39 pages
000041980 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000041980 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000041980 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000041980 520__ $$aThis Note will argue why the  standard  implemented  by  Federal  Circuit  is  flawed  through  an  economic  analysis  and  comparison  of  design  patents  versus  utility  patents  before  and  after  the  decision  in  Apple  v.  Samsung.  This  Note  will then propose a more functional and fair design patent infringement remedy standard based on “apportionment.”
000041980 525__ $$aPublished in : Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, vol. 35, no. 1 (2017)
000041980 650_0 $$aPatent troll
000041980 650_0 $$aApple Computer
000041980 650_0 $$aSamsung
000041980 650_0 $$aPatent$$xLaw and legislation
000041980 85641 $$uhttp://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/35.1-Coughlin.pdf$$yView this resource
000041980 904__ $$aJournal article
000041980 980__ $$aBIB