Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the Georgia-Pacific factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.
The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, No. 2016-2197 at 28 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2018). A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the Georgia-Pacific factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air. Id. Moreover, the reasonable royalty must be apportioned, so that it is based on the patented contribution and not unpatented aspects of the accused product. This can be achieved by adjusting either the royalty base or the royalty rate. However, the rate selected must be based on facts presented to the jury. It is insufficient to address the Georgia-Pacific factors superficially and then announce a royalty rate, without explaining how those factors or other evidence led to the selection of the rate. Id. at 24-25.
*May exclude premium content
By David H. Bernstein and Jared I. Kagan
In the first case in U.S. Supreme Court history argued by telephone, the Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Booking.com, holding that it could register as a trademark its eponymous domain name BOOKING.COM.
By Jason Bloom
The Supreme Court decided two copyright cases this term, both involving states. This article discusses the cases and their likely impact on copyright law going forward.
By Rene Befurt, Marie Warchol and Anthony Nasr
As consumer surveys become increasingly common forms of evidence in matters involving copyright, patent or trademark infringement, so too do Daubert challenges that attempt to disqualify that evidence. However, getting admitted into court is no guarantee of success — you are not over the entire Daubert hurdle just yet. The next step is ensuring that your survey is convincing the fact finders that your survey’s results are dependable and useful.
By Howard Shire and Shaleen Patel
Federal Circuit: Faulty Claim Construction Does Not End Patentability Determination
Federal Circuit: Notice to Market Bio Product Not Negated By New Applications