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.
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.
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.
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.