Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com 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 Sarah Benowich
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
The Supreme Court, settling a circuit split, held that, although highly important, willfulness is not a prerequisite for a trademark infringement plaintiff to obtain a profits award.
By Anthony J. Dreyer
On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, finding that any preclusion of litigation defenses must comply with traditional res judicata principles, and ruling that Lucky Brand was not precluded from asserting its defenses in its long-standing trademark litigation against Marcel Fashions Group
By Shaleen J. Patel and Sushmitha Rajeevan
Machine learning allows certain AI to create entirely new content based upon the materials it used to learn. In the process of creating new content, AI may create copies of copyrighted works in memory storage as a byproduct of its overall output sequence. This article explores authorship and ownership of such AI-generated content, and to what extent, if any, can copyrights be infringed upon when AI reproduces copyrighted works for machine learning.
By Rudy Kim and Chris Han
Holding that the parties’ executed agreement mooted the issues in the case, the Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment of non-infringement despite the parties’ agreement. The decision builds upon prior Federal Circuit case law giving effect to settlement agreements.