In Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton, the Federal Circuit added to the pool of cases dealing with royalty apportionment, ruling that even though apportionment was required in the reasonable royalty determination, the apportionment could be done on the royalty rate, instead of the base, mainly because the patent claims refer to the broader product. …LEARN MORE
In Acantha v. DePuy, a patent case dealing with spinal implant orthopedic devices, a Wisconsin district court judge excluded what seems to be the bulk of the reasonable royalty opinions of Plaintiff’s damages expert. The court ruled that (1) the main basis for the expert’s proposed royalty rate improperly includes royalties paid to a licensee that is not a party …LEARN MORE
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
So begins a district court ruling in Good Technology v. MobileIron. The Court’s EMVR lesson in this July 10, 2015, order is as follows: when Dauberting an opposing damages expert for failing to fully apportion the patented product in his reasonable royalty opinion, you had better identify the unpatented features and show how …LEARN MORE
In this case where Microsoft’s Xbox and Kinect sensors are accused of infringing a facial recognition patent, the Virginia court excludes some opinions regarding the use of comparable agreements, the Entire Market Value Rule, and the basis for a lump-sum royalty. Plaintiff’s expert, Walter Bratic, opined that royalty damages should be a running …LEARN MORE