MD Affidavit for Domestic Partnership and Domestic Partner's Dependents 2009-2024 free printable template

Video instructions and help with filling out and completing affidavit of domestic partnership maryland

Instructions and Help about how to file domestic partnership form

CHANCE: WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE PROFESSOR JAY THOMAS FROM GEORGETOWN LAW WITH US AGAIN THIS YEAR. PROFESSOR THOMAS, THANKS FOR BEING WITH US. THIS YEAR, THE COURT DECIDED A CASE CONCERNING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ENHANCED DAMAGES COULD BE AWARDED IN WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT CASES. SO WHAT WAS THE LAW OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT PRIOR TO HALO VERSUS PULSE ELECTRONICS? THOMAS: SO THE PATENT ACT JUST SAYS THAT DAMAGES CAN BE TRIPLED OR TREBLED IN CASES OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT. IT JUST SAYS “MAY.” THE CASE LAW FOR A LONG TIME HAS HELD THAT APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ENHANCING DAMAGES IS INDEED WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT. THE BIG CASE WAS A 2007 DECISION FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CALLED SEAGATE, AND IT SET UP A TWO-PART STANDARD. THERE WAS AN OBJECTIVE SIDE AND THERE WAS A SUBJECTIVE SIDE. THE OBJECTIVE TEST SAID THAT OBJECTIVELY, THE PATENT INFRINGED SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IT WAS ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD INFRINGE A VALID PATENT AND SUBJECTIVELY, ITSELF HAD TO KNOW THAT THE ACTUAL ACTOR ITSELF HAD TO BE AWARE OF THIS POSSIBILITY. THE PATENT HOLDER HAD TO PROVE BOTH OF THOSE AS FACTORS BY THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARD. CHANCE: SO WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF HALO VERSUS PULSE ELECTRONICS? THOMAS: WELL, THE PRINCIPAL IMPACT IS TO GET RID OF THE OBJECTIVE SIDE. SO EFFECTIVELY, SUPREME COURT SAID HAVING THAT OBJECTIVE STANDARD WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE. THE TERM “MAY” GRANTED A LOT OF DISCRETION TO THE TRIAL COURTS, THE SUPREME COURT SAID, AND SORT OF SHOEHORNING INTO THE SUBJECTIVE STANDARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THE COURT WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE FOCUS SHOULD BE WHAT THE ACCUSED INFRINGED DID AT THE TIME OF INFRINGEMENT. IT WOULD BE TOO EASY LATER IN TRIAL TO COME UP WITH SOME EXCUSE THAT THE PATENT WAS INVALID OR NOT INFRINGED WHEN THAT WASN'T PART OF THE DECISION MAKING AT THE TIME. ALSO, THE STANDARD OF PROOF WAS LOWERED FOR BOTH--OR FOR THE NEW SUBJECTIVE-ONLY TEST. CHANCE: HOW DID THE COURT LOWER THE STANDARD OF PROOF? WHAT IS IT NOW? THOMAS: IT'S NOW JUST A MERE PREPONDERANCE. IT USED TO BE THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING HIGHER STANDARD. CHANCE: OK. AND WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR AWARDING ENHANCED DAMAGES? IS THAT THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING OR IS IT-- THOMAS: IT'S JUST A PREPONDERANCE AT THIS POINT AND IT'S JUST THE SUBJECTIVE TEST. SO THE ADJUDICATED INFRINGED HAD TO ENGAGE IN CULPABLE, EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR. IT HAD TO KNOW ABOUT A VALID PATENT, IT HAD TO BELIEVE IT WAS INFRINGING, IT HAD TO CONTINUE ITS ACTIONS ANYWAY. THE COURT STRESSES THAT THESE AREN'T FOR MINE-RUN CASES. IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING SPECIAL. CHANCE: WERE YOU SURPRISED BY THIS ONE? THOMAS: NOT AT ALL. THERE WERE TWO 2014 CASES FROM THE COURT, AND THOSE DECISIONS DEALT WITH A SISTER STATUTE ABOUT WITH THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES. AND THESE ARE OCTANE FITNESS AND HIGHER, BY THE WAY. AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HAD SET UP A SIMILAR KIND OF STANDARD FOR THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES, AND THE SUPREME COURT KNOCKED THAT BACK. SO THIS WAS SORT OF A PRETTY EASY FOLLOW-UP. IN FACT, THE SUPREME...