Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Supreme Court rules on willfulness requirement to obtain infringer’s profits

In a trademark infringement case that turned on whether the plaintiff had to show willful infringement by the defendant to obtain the infringer’s profits, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently answered no.

Supreme Court reviews damages issue in trademark infringement case

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a trademark infringement case that turns on whether the plaintiff, in order to obtain the infringer’s profits, has to show willful infringement by the defendant.

Supreme Court allows recovery for lost foreign profits

In a much-anticipated patent infringement ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of damages under certain circumstances.

Court shows itself flexible on apportioning for royalty calculation

It’s written in stone that experts developing a reasonable royalty for a multicomponent product must be careful to apportion damages to the product’s protected features. However, there is flexibility in how experts perform the apportionment, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed.

Lost profits case awaiting Supreme Court decision

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review a patent infringement case on the scope of damages. The issue is whether a patent holder may obtain lost profits for actions that occurred outside the United States, where the patentee has proven a domestic act of infringement.

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.

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

Federal Circuit strikes down portion of damages, finding expert’s royalty base was unsupported because she merely apportioned to the “smallest identifiable technical component,” which itself was a multicomponent software engine that performed both noninfringing and infringing functions.

Court Doubles Down on Apportionment for Multifunctional Smallest Salable Unit

Federal Circuit strikes down portion of damages, finding expert’s royalty base was unsupported because she merely apportioned to the “smallest identifiable technical component,” which itself was a multicomponent software engine that performed both noninfringing and infringing functions.

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.

Federal Circuit drills down into Panduit, apportionment, and lost profits

The Federal Circuit recently examined a paramount damages issue that comes up in patent cases: whether, in terms of calculating lost profits, the patent holder’s ability to meet the Panduit factors makes a separate apportionment analysis unnecessary.

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.

Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

Federal Circuit Discusses Rationale Behind Different Measures of Damages

Federal Circuit says expert’s royalty analysis was not improper “pseudo” lost profits analysis that tried to circumvent higher standard of proof, where expert considered plaintiff’s profits as one of many factors in her hypothetical-negotiation model.

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.

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.

Supreme Court Obfuscates Design Patent Damages Issue

Supreme Court agrees with Samsung that design patent infringement damages statute (Section 289) does not per se require infringer to pay profits from entire product but can be limited to profits from component(s) to which the protected design was applied.

Federal Circuit reacts coolly to ‘pseudo’ lost profits argument; royalty analysis may consider profits

The Federal Circuit recently found a reasonable royalty calculation that took into account the plaintiff’s profit margin was not a lost profits analysis in disguise. The plaintiff’s expert did not try to circumvent the “but for” causation requirement that applied to a lost profits claim.

Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

TiVo Research & Analytics, Inc. v. TNS Media Research

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

Danmark v. CMI USA, Inc.

Federal Circuit says expert’s royalty analysis was not improper “pseudo” lost profits analysis that tried to circumvent higher standard of proof, where expert considered plaintiff’s profits as one of many factors in her hypothetical-negotiation model.

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc. (VI)

Supreme Court agrees with Samsung that design patent infringement damages statute (Section 289) does not per se require infringer to pay profits from entire product but can be limited to profits from component(s) to which the protected design was applied.

Federal Circuit Discusses Rationale Behind Different Measures of Damages

Federal Circuit says expert’s royalty analysis was not improper “pseudo” lost profits analysis that tried to circumvent higher standard of proof, where expert considered plaintiff’s profits as one of many factors in her hypothetical-negotiation model.

1 - 25 of 188 results