Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (I)

Court admits apportionment based on lines of infringing code and on value defendant places on product features in accused products but excludes apportionment using forward citation analysis for failure to show value of asserted patents in marketplace.

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Corp. (II)

In dispute over infringement of standard-essential patent (SEP), Federal Circuit holds royalty must be apportioned to the value of the patented feature and must exclude any added value to the patented feature from standard’s widespread adoption.

Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

Federal Circuit affirms plaintiff’s damages theory that relies on sufficiently comparable license to calculate reasonable royalty; court says there is an assumption that apportionment was built into negotiations for comparable license, obviating need for further apportionment in instant case.

Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (I)

Court finds plaintiff expert’s lost profits calculation regarding two-supplier market is inadmissible and rejects reasonable royalty to the extent expert failed to explain how apportionment in benchmark licenses relates to expert’s hypothetical license.

Patent Royalty Damages – What’s the Approach?

Royalty damages are one of the two primary types of patent infringement damages; which represent the majority of patent damages awarded and are a part of most patent damages cases. Experts John L Abramic and Richard F. Bero present a structured approach to addressing key royalty damages components. Drawing on the extensive patent damages and litigation experience of our presenters, the presentation covers royalty damages fundamentals, navigates patent damages case law, and provides insightful concepts ...

Patent Infringement Damages: Lost Profits and Royalties

If a patent owner can prove another company or party has made, used or sold a product covered by a patent without its permission, the patent owner is entitled, under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, to receive “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.” This program focuses ...

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

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.

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. (I)

Federal Circuit rejects challenge to lost profits award; patentee showed entitlement to lost profits from whole product by satisfying Panduit; although infringing product had multiple components, further apportionment in this case was not necessary.

Shire ViroPharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC

In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.


Book Excerpts

The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Fifth Edition edited by NancyJ. Fannon and Jonathan Dunitz, bridges the gap between the economics in damages cases and what the courts say about the calculations and evidentiary requirements.

26 - 35 of 35 results