LORENZO WILES v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that patent infringement damages and trademark infringement disgorgement were duplicative for sales of the same products
• concluding that patent infringement damages and trademark infringement disgorgement were duplicative for sales of the same products
• holding that double recovery of patent and trademark damages is not permitted
• prohibiting recovery of both a royalty award and a disgorgement award because they were “based on the same sales of the same accused devices” (emphases added)
• impermissible double recovery where \all of the damages awarded to [plaintiff] flowed from the same operative facts: sales of the [same] infringing [products]\
• impermissible double recovery where “all of the damages awarded to [plaintiff] flowed from the same operative facts: sales of the [same] infringing [prod- ucts]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).