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 ...
Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”
Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”
Supreme Court asked to review entire market value rule (EMVR) standard
A patent holder recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision on what a patentee must do to base damages on the entire market value rule (EMVR).
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.
Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.
Federal Circuit Sharpens EMVR Test Applicable to Multicomponent Products
Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
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.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.
Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. (II)
Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.
Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded
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.
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.
Pivotal Ruling on Damage Calculation for SEP Infringement
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.
Uncritical Use of Royalty Rate Data Spoils Damages Opinion
Court excludes most of damages testimony under Daubert because expert based reasonable royalty calculation on data from IP databases and publications without subjecting information to rigorous analysis and establishing its relevance to case at hand.
Federal Circuit Weighs Use of EMVR in Pharmaceutical Case
Federal Circuit affirms award of 50% of gross margin, finding that, even though the entire market value rule is not per se inapplicable in the pharmaceutical context, it does not apply in this case because patents cover the entire infringing product.
Chico’s Fas, Inc. v. Clair
Court excludes most of damages testimony under Daubert because expert based reasonable royalty calculation on data from IP databases and publications without subjecting information to rigorous analysis and establishing its relevance to case at hand.
AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.
Federal Circuit affirms award of 50% of gross margin, finding that, even though the entire market value rule is not per se inapplicable in the pharmaceutical context, it does not apply in this case because patents cover the entire infringing product.
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.
Inexact Apportionment Invalidates Expert’s Royalty Calculation
Court excludes plaintiff expert testimony under Daubert, finding both the expert’s royalty base and rate determinations fatally flawed due to the expert’s inexact apportionment; in valuing damages, he failed to compensate only for the infringement caused ...
Finding ‘Smallest Salable Unit’ Does Not End Royalty Base Analysis
District court finds expert’s royalty analysis is fatally defective as to the base and rate; expert improperly presumed that using smallest salable unit featuring the patented part ended rate analysis even though that feature was not closely tied to defen ...
Glaring Unfamiliarity With Patent Law Disqualifies Expert
District court disqualifies proffered expert under all the Daubert factors, finding he lacked any understanding of patent cases and the dominant legal principles; he applied the discredited 25% rule of thumb and the entire market value rule, failed to pro ...
Invocation of EMVR Subject to Higher Degree of Proof
In ruling on defendants’ post-trial motion, district court finds plaintiff’s expert improperly invoked the entire market value rule (EMVR) in calculating lost profits because customers did not decide to buy a system containing the patented device simply t ...
Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook
Court excludes plaintiff expert testimony under Daubert, finding both the expert’s royalty base and rate determinations fatally flawed due to the expert’s inexact apportionment; in valuing damages, he failed to compensate only for the infringement caused ...
‘Murky’ Infringement Theory Undercuts Royalty Claim
District court denies both parties’ motions for new trial, finding an award for “induced infringement” would be based on the very act of infringement that underlies the award for direct infringement and would be double dipping; also since the patented tec ...
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.
Court denies defendant’s Daubert motion finding plaintiff expert determined royalty base consistent with plaintiff’s infringement theory that defendant’s entire product infringed and the product was not functional without the patented technology.