Reply brief in Lexmark v. Static Control

Lexmark’s Reply Brief, to finish out the set.  Obviously I disagree, but I’ll limit myself here to one argument I think is disingenuous to the point of misleadingness: the equation of antitrust treble damages and fees, which are mandatory and punitive (“shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee,” 15 U.S.C. § 15) with Lanham Act damages and fees (which allow but do not require the court to increase a damage award up to three times over what the plaintiff proved as actual damages, as long as that’s reflecting the court’s assessment of the true damages and “not a penalty,” and only provide for a fee award in “exceptional” cases, 15 U.S.C. § 1117).

This entry was posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s