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.
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.
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.
Comcast Cable Communs. v. Sprint Communs. Co.
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.
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.
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.
No Legal Barrier to Expert’s Adjusted Lost Profits Analysis
Federal Circuit upholds lost profits award based on adjusted market share analysis, finding expert accounted for huge price disparity between patentee’s product and infringer’s product and based market elasticity discount on sound economic principles.
Trial Court Misinterprets Damages Rules for Design Patent Violation
Federal Circuit rejects design patent infringement award where prevailing expert improperly apportioned the infringer’s profits and jury failed to determine infringer’s profits but, against the weight of the evidence, simply stated they equaled zero.
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.
Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
Federal Circuit upholds lost profits award based on adjusted market share analysis, finding expert accounted for huge price disparity between patentee’s product and infringer’s product and based market elasticity discount on sound economic principles.
Complex Facts Test Patent Experts’ Apportionment Skills
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.
Nordock, Inc. v. Systems, Inc.
Federal Circuit rejects design patent infringement award where prevailing expert improperly apportioned the infringer’s profits and jury failed to determine infringer’s profits but, against the weight of the evidence, simply stated they equaled zero.
Federal Circuit Sweeps Aside Lost Profits Theories and Award
Federal Circuit strikes down lost profits where patentee does not practice patents and fails to qualify for convoyed sales because of missing functional relationship between nonpatented parts it sells to related company and latter’s patented products.
Federal Circuit Resists Samsung’s ‘Quest for Apportionment’
Federal Circuit rejects Samsung’s call for apportioning damages related to design patent infringement, saying the proposed treatment would conflict with the express language of the applicable statute; court upholds most of $1 billion award to Apple.
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.
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.
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (V)
Federal Circuit rejects Samsung’s call for apportioning damages related to design patent infringement, saying the proposed treatment would conflict with the express language of the applicable statute; court upholds most of $1 billion award to Apple.
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.
Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.
Federal Circuit strikes down lost profits where patentee does not practice patents and fails to qualify for convoyed sales because of missing functional relationship between nonpatented parts it sells to related company and latter’s patented products.
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.
EMVR Must Not Swallow Apportionment, Federal Circuit Says
Federal Circuit strikes award against Apple, finding it resulted from district court’s misstating the law on the entire market value rule and apportionment and court’s failure to serve as gatekeeper under Daubert and exclude unreliable damages testimony.