In its January 2018 ruling in Finjan v. Blue Coat, the Federal Circuit reversed a $24 million jury award of damages and took a strict stance on apportionment that seems to reverse the more flexible position from its Ericsson decision. This creates some uncertainty about how a reasonable royalty base and structure should …LEARN MORE
In Comcast v. Sprint, the district court allowed Comcast’s patent damages expert to employ “forward citation analyses” in two aspects of his reasonable royalty opinions, finding that the methodology was sufficiently reliable. …LEARN MORE
In this patent infringement case about mobile handset digital watermarking technology, a Texas court rejected the royalty rate methodology of plaintiff’s expert because the expert failed to explain, mathematically, how his survey data led to his 10% factor to apportion the value of the handset …LEARN MORE
In a case regarding mobile phone picture uploading, the Federal Circuit affirmed a $15 million jury verdict against Samsung despite its kitchen-sink appeals on claim construction, verdicts, and damages. Regarding damages, the appeals court concluded that Summit 6’s damages expert’s methodology was acceptable despite …LEARN MORE
A California district court excluded opinions of a damages expert that attempted to apportion the reasonable royalty based on forward citations; i.e. the number of times each patent-in-suit has been cited as prior art by future patents. …LEARN MORE