Court Affirms Validity of Patent Citation Analysis in Royalty Calculation
Court says forward citation method to determine value of patent in suit is not per se unreliable and royalty testimony based on it is admissible under Daubert; also, there is no bright-line rule against use of code- or step-counting for apportionment.
3M Innovative Props. Co. v. GDC, Inc.
Court finds expert’s use of two-supplier and market share methods as well as Panduit test generate admissible lost profits calculation; court also admits expert’s reasonable royalty analysis, saying it does not include unlawful post-expiration sales.
No Automatic Bar to Royalties Accruing After Life of Patent
Court finds expert’s use of two-supplier and market share methods as well as Panduit test generate admissible lost profits calculation; court also admits expert’s reasonable royalty analysis, saying it does not include unlawful post-expiration sales.
Court admits expert's anti-'Georgia-Pacific' royalty calculation
There is no absolute requirement to develop a reasonable royalty based on the Georgia-Pacific framework. That's the takeaway from a Daubert ruling in which the court denied the defendant's motion to preclude the testimony of the opposing damages expert, who determined a reasonable royalty based on market data instead of the customary Georgia-Pacific factors.
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.
Court’s Damages Model for SEP Infringement Fails Apportionment Rules
Federal Circuit invalidates infringement award where trial court’s damages model failed to filter out value to the patent in suit accruing from its being essential to wireless standard and failed to adjust its Georgia-Pacific analysis for standardization.
Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation v. Cisco Sys.
Federal Circuit invalidates infringement award where trial court’s damages model failed to filter out value to the patent in suit accruing from its being essential to wireless standard and failed to adjust its Georgia-Pacific analysis for standardization.
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.
StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc.
Court says market approach is “sound and reliable methodology” for calculating reasonable royalty and denies defendants’ Daubert motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert from testifying why he declined to use Georgia-Pacific factors in this case.
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.
Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team
Federal Circuit finds district court erred when it considered infringer’s actual profits a royalty cap instead of doing a hypothetical inquiry into what parties would have anticipated and ordered court to consider evidence of gross profits on remand.
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.
Abandoning ‘Classic Way’ to Royalty Analysis, Expert Gets Lost
Court excludes royalty analysis veering from “classic way” in that expert used number of infringing products, not revenue, as royalty base and dollar amount, not percentage of the revenue, as royalty rate.
Nash Bargaining Solution a ‘Non-Starter’ for Royalty Analysis
Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”
May Expert Use Valuation With Unknown Discounts for Royalty Analysis?
Court says no requirement exists that expert’s royalty analysis only consider transactions that are both technologically and economically comparable and finds Daubert allows for a reasonable royalty calculation based on a valuation of patent in suit embed ...
Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, Inc.
Court excludes royalty analysis veering from “classic way” in that expert used number of infringing products, not revenue, as royalty base and dollar amount, not percentage of the revenue, as royalty rate.
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)
Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (I)
Court says no requirement exists that expert’s royalty analysis only consider transactions that are both technologically and economically comparable and finds Daubert allows for a reasonable royalty calculation based on a valuation of patent in suit embed ...
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 ...
Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC
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 ...
SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.
District court denies defendants’ post-trial challenge to $10 million jury award finding the fact that the patent assignee at the time of the hypothetical negotiation was worth less than its single patent-in-suit does not control the assessment of patent ...
De Lage Landen Operational Services, LLC v. Third Pillar Systems
Court strikes expert evidence under Daubert in trade secrets case, because expert failed to pinpoint date on which misappropriation began—a “vital” requirement when applying the Georgia-Pacific framework.
Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment
Federal district court strikes portions of expert copyright infringement damages that apply the ex post Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty calculations, because federal law requires ex ante approach.
Enpat, Inc. v. Budnic
Federal court denies plaintiff’s request to prorate past patent infringement damages from actual prior licenses without additional evidence that the parties’ would have used a similar proration during hypothetical negotiations.
Uniloc v. Microsoft Special Report: Lessons Outside of the Courtroom
In a U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision issued on January 4 in the case of Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (Uniloc), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a damage expert’s reliance of the “25% rule of thumb” in determining a reasonable royalty rate was inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence.