Federal Circuit explains concept of ‘built-in’ apportionment
The Federal Circuit, in ruling on a patent infringement case involving two major pharmaceutical companies, recently clarified the apportionment requirement.
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.
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.
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.
Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”
Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”
Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Properly Captured Value Added by Plaintiff’s Invention
Court denies defendants’ post-trial challenge to jury award; court finds award was based on a theory of reasonable royalty, not lost profits, as defendants claim; plaintiff expert’s royalty rate properly captured value added by plaintiff’s patent and relationship between plaintiff and defendants.
Simo Holdings, Inc. v. H.K. uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.
Court denies defendants’ post-trial challenge to jury award; court finds award was based on a theory of reasonable royalty, not lost profits, as defendants claim; plaintiff expert’s royalty rate properly captured value added by plaintiff’s patent and relationship between plaintiff and defendants.
Supreme Court asked to review entire market value rule (EMVR) standard
A patent holder recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision on what a patentee must do to base damages on the entire market value rule (EMVR).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.
Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.
Federal Circuit Sharpens EMVR Test Applicable to Multicomponent Products
Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.
‘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.
Intellectual property trends: Average royalty rates, most active industries, and more
Explore intellectual property trends, including average royalty rates, most common royalty payment agreement bases, and most active industries. View real-world statistics based on thousands of actual license agreements.
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.
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.
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.