{"id":84,"date":"2011-01-14T21:18:22","date_gmt":"2011-01-14T19:18:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/old.ip-law.co.il\/blog\/?p=84"},"modified":"2011-01-14T21:18:22","modified_gmt":"2011-01-14T19:18:22","slug":"the-supreme-court-discusses-damages-in-a-patent-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/the-supreme-court-discusses-damages-in-a-patent-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Israeli Supreme Court Discusses Damages in a Patent Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The <a title=\"Israel Supreme Court\" href=\"http:\/\/www.court.gov.il\/heb\/home.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Israeli Supreme Court<\/a> recently handed down a decision in Gideon Rotenberg v. Elgo Irrigation Ltd. et. al. and addressed section 183 to the Israeli Patent Act.\u00a0Section 183 lists the remedies the plaintiff is entitled to should his suit succeed.<a href=\"http:\/\/old.ip-law.co.il\/blog\/?attachment_id=578\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-578\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-578\" title=\"St_Remy_Bishop_of_Rheims_begging_of_Clovis_the_restitution_of_the_Sacred_Vase_taken_by_the_Franks_in_the_Pillage_of_Soissons\" src=\"http:\/\/old.ip-law.co.il\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/01\/St_Remy_Bishop_of_Rheims_begging_of_Clovis_the_restitution_of_the_Sacred_Vase_taken_by_the_Franks_in_the_Pillage_of_Soissons.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1435\" height=\"1600\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><!--more-->Section 183(a) provides that a plaintiff is entitled to an injunction and damages.<\/p>\n<p>Section 183(b) provides that when the court addresses the issue of damages, it will take into\u00a0account\u00a0the infringing act of the defendant, and the condition of the plaintiff as a result of the infringement, and it may take into account, among other things, the following: (1) the direct damages caused to the plaintiff; (2) the extent of the infringement; (3) the profits the infringers gained from the acts of infringement; (4) reasonable royalties the infringer would have had to pay should a license to exploit the patent would have been granted to him at the infringement extent.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u00a0reiterated\u00a0previous decisions and stated that the applicable legal theories to be used are those of Tort law. And that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">the basic principle of section 183 is that of restitution<\/span> &#8211; placing the plaintiff in a position as if the patent has not been infringed. But,\u00a0separate\u00a0from principles of Tort law, the Court, when deciding the damages measure, may take into account the infringing acts and the list of tests in section 183(b). The Supreme Court stated that each court should <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">determine the damages according to the relevant test which would best serve the interest of restitution <\/span><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">a<\/span><span style=\"color: #000000;\">nd would also take into account the profits and expenses of the infringer<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also stated that damage calculations should be supported by an expert opinion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Israeli Supreme Court recently handed down a decision in Gideon Rotenberg v. Elgo Irrigation Ltd. et. al. and addressed section 183 to the Israeli Patent Act.\u00a0Section 183 lists the remedies the plaintiff is entitled to should his suit succeed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,11,17],"tags":[9,27,12,28,29],"class_list":["post-84","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-damages","category-israel","category-patent","tag-court","tag-damages-2","tag-israel","tag-section-183","tag-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanlaw.legal\/he\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}