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
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
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
This district court wrestles with a conflicting area of patent damages that we at VLF have previously identified: although the Fed. Circuit wants patent royalties to be based on the “smallest saleable unit,” it later rejected the use of MS Outlook (presumably the smallest saleable unit) as a royalty base.
In this case, Plaintiff’s damages expert, Larry Evans, calculated damages based on Intel processors – the smallest saleable unit – …LEARN MORE