Source: https://newsletter.bpla.org/summer2016-reasonable-royalties-and-the-fede
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:51:55+00:00

Document:
Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.
Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
Nordock, Inc. v. Systems Inc.
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd.
). Given this article’s focus on reasonable royalties, these decisions have not been addressed here, as they merit a full discussion on their own.
The Federal Circuit’s decision also addressed issues related to non-infringing alternatives and settlement agreements, with the Court confirming the general relevance of these facts in determining reasonable royalties.
Summit also appealed the district court’s finding that the jury’s award represented a lump sum payment that compensated for both past and future infringement. This was rejected by the Federal Circuit, as it found there was sufficient support for the finding that the jury award represented a lump sum, such as the fact that the jury handwrote the phrase “lump sum” on the verdict sheet, and expert testimony at trial described a lump-sum as providing compensation through the life of the patent.
Cisco also appealed the district court’s decision to discount the relevance of a license agreement entered into by CSIRO in its royalty determination. The Federal Circuit found that several of the reasons provided by the district court for discounting this license agreement were “flawed” and in its remand, ordered the court to “reevaluate the relevance” of this license to its royalty analysis.
Summit 6 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd.
AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.
University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
decision emphasizes the Federal Court’s focus on the importance of apportionment, and confirmed the need for properly apportioned royalty awards in circumstances where the claims of the asserted patent may cover the entire product by including “conventional” elements. In such instances, the Court concluded that “it is not the case that the value of all conventional elements must be subtracted from the value of the patented invention as a whole when assessing damages.” This suggests that in some circumstances, if a patent claims a combination of elements that form the entire accused product, a patent holder may rely on the entire value of the accused product as the royalty base. However, the royalty rate used in such circumstances must isolate the value of the inventive contribution of the patent so that the ultimate royalty amount is properly apportioned.
Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc.
motions filed related to expert testimony on reasonable royalties, which have seen a dramatic increase in recent years.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
Ericsson, Inc. v. D–Link Sys., Inc.
Ensure that the ultimate royalties concluded reflect the “footprint” of the patented technology in the marketplace.
Practitioners that focus on integrating these core principles into comprehensive, credible, and balanced royalty analyses are more likely to have success in the ever-evolving world of reasonable royalty damages.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.