Federal Circuit Majority Says ‘Premium’ License Calculation Includes Noninfringing Products

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
November 19, 2018

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,778 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3648 Lighting Equipment, NEC
335129 Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing
intellectual property
daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, reasonable royalty, royalty base, rule 702, hypothetical negotiation
Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.
2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32625
US
Federal Court
Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
None (plaintiff); Julie Davis (defendant)
Stoll

Summary

Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.

See Also

Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.

Full Text of Court Cases
November 19, 2018

Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition