Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

Sufficiently Comparable License Obviates Further Apportionment for Reasonable Royalty

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.

Court Finds Use of Industry Licensing Data Reasonable and Relevant to Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Opinion

Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.

J&M Industries, Inc. v. Raven Industries, Inc.

Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.

Plaintiff Fails Panduit Test Where Lost Profits Analysis Includes ‘Far More’ Than Value of Patents

In infringement case, court rejects plaintiff expert’s lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses, noting both rely on supply agreements covering more than the value of the patents; plaintiff fails Panduit test but is entitled to reasonable royalty based on opposing expert’s calculation.

Sunoco Partnership Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc.

In infringement case, court rejects plaintiff expert’s lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses, noting both rely on supply agreements covering more than the value of the patents; plaintiff fails Panduit test but is entitled to reasonable royalty based on opposing expert’s calculation.

Federal Circuit Majority Says ‘Premium’ License Calculation Includes Noninfringing Products

Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.

Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.

Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.

Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.

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

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.

Underdeveloped Comparability Analysis Means Exclusion of Reasonable Royalty Opinion

Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.

Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg.

Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.

Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

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.

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.

‘Lady Liberty’ Stamp Costs USPS Millions in Copyright Infringement

Court finds USPS’s unauthorized use of image of Las Vegas Lady Liberty on stamps infringed creator’s copyright and awards damages resulting from a hypothetical mixed license; USPS’s unique licensing history does not limit damages under applicable fair market value measure of damages.

Davidson v. United States

Court finds USPS’s unauthorized use of image of Las Vegas Lady Liberty on stamps infringed creator’s copyright and awards damages resulting from a hypothetical mixed license; USPS’s unique licensing history does not limit damages under applicable fair market value measure of damages.

Federal Circuit Clarifies Different Ways to Effect Apportionment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

‘Stand-Alone’ Lost Profits Claim Sinks, as Does Expert Opinion

In lost licensing opportunity suit, court excludes damages opinion where expert failed to vet assumptions in plaintiff’s business plan; issue is to determine market value of loss not lost profits as such.

1 - 25 of 26 results