Federal Circuit Clarifies Different Ways to Effect Apportionment

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
January 12, 2018

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,586 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3524 Lawn and Garden Tractors and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment
333112 Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing
intellectual property
patent infringement, royalty rate, expert testimony, admissibility, georgia-pacific, reasonable royalty, royalty base, apportionment, hypothetical negotiation
Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp. LLC
2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 783
US
Federal Court
Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Melissa Bennis (plaintiff); John R. Bone (defendant)
Stoll

Summary

Federal Circuit vacates damages, finding expert opinion was inadmissible because Georgia-Pacific discussion lacked analysis that tied G-P factors to facts of the case; court affirms apportionment requirement need not be satisfied through royalty base.

See Also

Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp. LLC

Full Text of Court Cases
January 12, 2018

Federal Circuit vacates damages, finding expert opinion was inadmissible because Georgia-Pacific discussion lacked analysis that tied G-P factors to facts of the case; court affirms apportionment requirement need not be satisfied through royalty base.