Apportionment Is Key to Calculating Patent Damages

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 18 No. 2
Legal and Court Case Update
February 2012

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. (1,670 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7372 Prepackaged Software
511210 Software Publishers
intellectual property
economic damages & lost profits
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (IV)
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130571
November 10, 2011
US
Federal Court
California
United States District Court
Raymond Sims
Huff

Summary

Federal district court reverses $70 million award based on expert’s failure to apportion damages between the patented and unpatented features of the accused product, finding that, at most, the evidence supported $26 million based on proper apportionment ...

See Also

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (IV)

Full Text of Court Cases
November 10, 2011

Federal district court reverses $70 million award based on expert’s failure to apportion damages between the patented and unpatented features of the accused product, finding that, at most, the evidence supported $26 million based on proper apportionment ...

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 18 No. 2
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition