Articles Posted in Damages

Published on:

by

After the district court determined that the plaintiff’s patent was infringed and was not invalid based on anticipation or obviousness, the district court held a bench trial on the issue of damages. The district court first analyzed the issue of lost profits. Finding that the plaintiff could not meet several of the Panduit factors because, among other things there were acceptable, non-infringing substitutes in the marketplace during the relevant time period, the district court denied plaintiff’s request for lost profits. “As plaintiff has not shown a reasonable probability that it would have made the majority of [defendant’s] sales given the existence of non-infringing switchblade divot repair tools on the market, the Court finds plaintiff has not met its burden in this regard.”

The district court next analyzed whether the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable royalty. Plaintiff contended that it was entitled to a 20% royalty on the gross profits of defendant’s infringing tools because the patented tools sold by the plaintiff had a high gross profit of 70%, there were few competitors, the tools were an impulse buy because they had a low price, the tools were an effective and low-cost promotional product, they had a unique design and function and the tools were accepted and known in the marketplace. The defendant argued for royalty rate of 5% of net profits.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Personal Audio, LLC (“Personal Audio”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) over two patents, which teach an audio program player that will play a sequence of audio program files and accept commands from the user to skip forward or backward in the sequence. After a jury trial, the jury found that the patents were infringed and awarded damages of $8 million in the form of a lump sum royalty.

After the jury verdict, Personal Audio moved for an award of ongoing royalties pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. The district court denied the motion. The district court found that “the jury’s lump sum damages award represents a fully paid up license for all past and future sales of Apple products that incorporate the patented technology. The court finds that the $8 million lump sum awarded by the jury adequately compensates Personal Audio for both past and future infringement, and therefore no ongoing royalty award is necessary.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a patent infringement action between Kimberly-Clark (“K-C”) and First Quality Baby Products (“First Quality”) pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, K-C filed a motion to compel First Quality to produce sales evaluation files relating to products accused of infringement. K-C asserted that the files were necessary because they might lead to admissible evidence regarding damage claims for a reasonable royalty and for lost profits due to price erosion. First Quality admitted in a deposition that the sales evaluation files contain information that is used in setting prices.

In analyzing whether the files should be produced, the district court began by stating that “[i]n calculating a reasonable royalty courts consider, among other things, the ‘infringer’s anticipated profit from the use of the patented invention.'” The district court found that First Quality’s sales evaluation files contain contribution margin analysis, which is a profitability measure used by First Quality to set prices. As a result, the district court noted that “it logically follows that First Quality’s sales evaluation files should be produced as they may aid in any calculation of reasonable royalties.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the district court granted defendants’ motion to limit damages for failure to mark for all but one of the patents-in-suit. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §287(a), a patentee must either mark a patented product or provide actual notice of infringement in order to recover damages. Section 287 can be satisfied either by constructive notice, accomplished by marking a product or packaging with the applicable patent number, or actual notice, such as sending a cease and desist letter or providing the alleged infringer with actual notice of infringement through another affirmative act.

Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law asserting that the plaintiff had failed to introduce sufficient evidence to support a finding that it was entitled to recover pre-suit damages because it failed to comply with the marking requirements of Section 287. Plaintiff argued that Section 287 did not apply because the defendants were aware of the patents and, therefore, had actual knowledge regardless of plaintiff’s failure to mark. The plaintiff also argued that with respect to one of the patents Section 287 did not apply because the plaintiff was only asserting method claims and not apparatus claims.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the court granted in pat and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of defendants’ damage experts. Plaintiff argued that the opinions of defendants’ experts were unreliable and used flawed methodologies because they failed to establish that the license agreement upon which their analyses were based were comparable to the technology of the patent-in-suit.

With respect to defendants’ first expert, the district court noted that the expert had not attempted to establish a link between the technology underlying the first license and the technology underlying plaintiff’s patent. But the court noted that the expert testified he had relied upon the defendants’ technical expert to learn than that the technology in the first license agreement is more important, in the opinion of the technical expert, than the technology covered by plaintiff’s patent. The court found that this testimony and reliance was sufficient to provide a link between the technology underlying the first license and that underlying plaintiff’s patent and, accordingly, denied that part of the motion.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the district court granted defendant’s motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s damage expert’s testimony based on the entire market value rule. The district court held that the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony ran afoul of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Lucent Technologies v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

The district court began its analysis by noting in Lucent that “the Federal Circuit announced that its jurisprudence on the entire market value rule–pursuant to which a patentee assesses damages based on the entire market value of the accused product–was quite clear. For the entire market value rule to apply, the patentee must prove that, ‘the patent related feature is the basis for customer demand.'” The district court also noted that in a more recent decision, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft, 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit “warned against the danger of admitting consideration of the entire market value of the accused product where the patented component does not create the basis for customer demand.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Section 292 of the Patent Statute (Title 35) provides a civil penalty for falsely marking goods as being covered by a patent and imposes a fine of no more than $500 “for every such offense.” A Section 292 claim, moreover, can be brought by anyone on behalf of the United States government. Yet, it was not until the Federal Circuit’s decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. December 28, 2009), that the floodgates of Section 292 claims were opened. In Forest Group, the Federal Circuit held that Section 292 provided for a penalty based on a per article basis rather than on each decision to mark. In other words, the Federal Circuit held that a penalty can be assessed against each product falsely marked rather than a single fine of no more than $500 imposed for falsely marking an entire line of products.

False marking claims typically involve one of two scenarios: (1) an article continues to be marked with a U.S. patent number (or marked with statements to that effect) even though the patent has expired or (2) the article is not covered by any patent and so any marking is false. According to Docket Navigator®, approximately 830 false marking suits have been filed since January 1, 2010 and March 15, 2011. Of those, most of them (i.e., some 60 percent of the cases) were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. As a result of the deluge of Section 292 lawsuits, manufacturers are faced with a dilemma about whether to (1) spend time and money to ascertain whether any patents listed on products actually cover their product or have expired and, if necessary; remove the patent number; (2) remove any patent numbers from all of its products going forward and risk limiting damages in a subsequent infringement lawsuit to the time when an infringer has actual notice of the patent per Section 287 of the Patent Statute; or (3) do nothing and risk a Section 292 claim.

Recently published data regarding settlements of Section 292 claims have shed some light on the actual cost of settling such claims. According one source, there have been approximately 191 settlements from May 10, 2010 through March 4, 2011. The lowest settlement reported was $500 while the largest settlement reported was $350,000 with the average settlement at about $55,635. The total sum for all 191 settlements is $10.6 million. Approximately 80 percent of the claims settle for $75,000 or less. The largest number of claims settled at between $0 and $25,000 with 70 settlements while the next largest group is between $25,001-$50,000 with 52 settlements, and the next largest group being those settlements between $50,001-$75,000 with 30.

Continue reading