Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. And Hawe Yue, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the district court subtracted certain expenses from revenues to arrive at a profit figure
• noting that once marking begins, it must be 27 “substantially consistent and continuous”
• The focus of the marking inquiry is “whether the patentee’s actions were sufficient, in the circumstances, to provide notice in rem.”
• “[T]he decision in Braun was based not on drawing a rigorous distinction between ‘damages’ and ‘profits,’ but on the [no-double-recovery] provision of § 289[.]”
• “[T]here is a natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning . . . .”3
• focus for purpose of marking statute “is not on what the infringer actually knew, but on whether the patentee’s actions were sufficient, in the circumstances, to provide notice in rem”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).