In a memorandum opinion and order, Judge Davis finds that a jury’s damages award of $208 million was not supported by the evidence. Finding that the accused software features were not shown to have created the “basis for customer demand” or “substantially created the value of the component parts” for Apples hardware and software products, the court finds that Mirror Worlds was obligated to apportion the royalty base, which its expert, Walter Bratic, did not do. And further, it could not try to achieve such apportionment by adjusting the royalty rate downward (citing Uniloc); instead, it must apportion the base. The court also faults Mr. Bratic for failing to support the suggested reasonable royalty rates, for not explaining why Apple would agree to a running royalty, and for failing to account for certain license agreements that did not award similar royalties.
Although Mirror Worlds argued that their damages calculation started with the smallest salable units, here we see another court set that issue aside and instead focus on whether the patented feature created the basis for customer demand. As a result, questions remain regarding the importance of the “smallest salable unit” (as noted by the Federal Circuit in Cornell v. hp) ...
Read More
