Federal Circuit Restricts Patent Damages to ‘Smallest Salable Infringing Unit’
Federal Circuit requires the apportionment analysis for patent infringement claims to focus on the “smallest saleable unit.”
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (V)
Federal Circuit requires the apportionment analysis for patent infringement claims to focus on the “smallest saleable unit.”
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
Federal district court tosses out a $208 million jury award for lack of sufficient evidence proving patent infringement and for lack of legally justified damages, including improper reliance on entire market value of accused products.
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (IV)
Federal court excludes defendant’s damages expert under Daubert for offering an opinion regarding available, non-infringing alternatives to the patents in suit without providing any facts supporting whether such alternatives in fact existed and whether th ...
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (III)
Federal law does not bar the admission of reasonable royalty agreements when the patentee seeks a lump sum payout.
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (II)
Federal court excludes expert’s royalty rate under Daubert for relying on entire market value rule without credible economic foundation and for relying on non-comparable licenses as well as nonspecific, overly broad industry survey.
Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.
Federal Circuit rejects patent damages award based on 13 actual licenses for the patents in suit for failing to support jury’s lump-sum award.
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (I)
Federal district court finds $52 million damages award for patent infringement excessive, based largely on improper allocation of the entire market value rule by the plaintiff’s expert.