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.
Georgia-Pacific Analysis Satisfies Apportionment Requirement, Court Says
Court rejects Daubert challenge to lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses; court downplays importance of Panduit noninfringing-alternatives requirement and equates Georgia-Pacific analysis with apportionment between patented and unpatented features.
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.
Bombardier Rec. Prods. v. Arctic Cat Inc.
Court rejects Daubert challenge to lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses; court downplays importance of Panduit noninfringing-alternatives requirement and equates Georgia-Pacific analysis with apportionment between patented and unpatented features.
Georgia-Pacific Analysis Satisfies Apportionment Requirement, Court Says
Court rejects Daubert challenge to lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses; court downplays importance of Panduit noninfringing-alternatives requirement and equates Georgia-Pacific analysis with apportionment between patented and unpatented features.
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.
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.
Court Nixes Royalty Calculation Relying on Unalike Prior Licenses
Court says prior licensing agreements undergirding expert’s hypothetical reasonable royalty have no bearing on what the parties would have negotiated for the trademark in dispute; court finds calculation too speculative to assist jury and excludes it.
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.
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.
Arctic Cat v. Sabertooth Motor Group
Court says prior licensing agreements undergirding expert’s hypothetical reasonable royalty have no bearing on what the parties would have negotiated for the ...
Court Nixes Royalty Calculation Relying on Unalike Prior Licenses
Court says prior licensing agreements undergirding expert’s hypothetical reasonable royalty have no bearing on what the parties would have negotiated for the trademark in dispute; court finds calculation too speculative to assist jury and excludes it.
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.