A district court in Florida doubled the reasonable royalty rate awarded by a jury to arrive at a post-judgment royalty rate. The Court had already concluded that the jury’s royalty rate (for past damages) of $103 would …LEARN MORE
The CAFC has ruled in the past that an infringer’s net profit margin is not the ceiling capping a reasonable royalty (Golight v. WalMart, 2004) and here it again finds a lower court erred by doing just that in Douglas Dynamics v. Buyers Products. …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
Although the “25% Rule” has been largely declared dead, here a district court determined a post-trial royalty rate using the 25% rule as a starting point as per Paice v. Toyota, a commonly cited case for setting the framework for post-trial royalties. …LEARN MORE
In this post-trial order, the judge denies plaintiff’s request for ongoing royalties because the $8 million awarded by the jury was intended to cover both past and future infringement. Defendant Apple’s expert had testified that …LEARN MORE