Source: http://patent-damages.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:21:52+00:00

Document:
The Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, in Evicam Int’l, Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a Watchguard Video, Civil Action 4:16-CV-105, Judge Mazzant ruled on a motion in limine related to the hypothetical negotiation (along with other issues). Evicam moved to “exclude any argument, evidence, or testimony regarding how WatchGuard would have behaved at a hypothetical negotiation.” Slip Op. at 1. The court noted that a “reasonable royalty can be calculated from an established royalty, profit projections, or a hypothetical negotiation based on the factors in Georgia-Pacific.” Id. (citing Wordtech Sys. V. Integrated Networks, 609 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
The Federal Circuit, in Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. (also including Synopsys, Inc. as a defendant), Nos. 2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556 (Fed. Cir. September 1, 2017) (per curiam), denied EVE-USA’s petition for a rehearing en banc on issues of apportionment and lost profits damages. Judge Stoll, with whom Judges Newman, Moore (who issued the underlying opinion), O’Malley, Neyna, and Wallach joined, denied the rehearing. Judge Dyk, with whom Judge Hughes joined, dissented from the denial. 2017 WL 3806141 at *1.
The District of Delaware, Judge Andrews presiding, in Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Communications Co., Civil Action No. 12-205-RGA (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2014), issued a brief order concerning apportionment. Judge Andrews was faced with a motion in limine seeking to exclude profits and and/or revenues relating to the accused products as violating the entire market value rule (EMVR). The court decided that the briefing was not “enough for a good decision, and asked for further submissions including a proffer of the Comcast expert’s testimony.” Slip op. at 1. A proffer was thus requested.
The Federal Circuit, in Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Eve-USA, Inc. (also including Synopsys, Inc. as a defendant), Nos. 2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556 (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2017) (Judge Moore authoring), issued an opinion addressing apportionment and lost profits damages. The case addressed an open question that has gone both ways in district courts: whether lost profits requires further apportionment on top of the Panduit test. In other words, if a patentee is able to prove-up lost profits under Panduit, must the patentee apportion those lost profits to determine the incremental value of the patented feature vis-à-vis any unpatented features? The court answered the question in the negative, but reserved judgment on whether the same outcome would attach in all lost profits cases, particularly where the patentee relied on a theory other than Panduit to prove lost profits. Because the case is replete with meaningful language, the following summary consists mainly of direct quotes.
The District of Delaware in Mobile Telecommunications Tech., LLC v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Case No. 16-md-02722-LPS-CJB (Judge Stark), addressed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. Section 287. More specifically, the defendant argued that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with respect to one of the patents because it failed to plead compliance with Section 287 and the patent had expired before the complaint was filed.
The Federal Circuit, in Prism Tech. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., Nos. 2016-1456, 2016-1457 (Fed. Cir. March 6, 2017) (Judge Taranto authoring), issued an opinion addressing comparable license agreements and the cost savings approach for reasonable royalties. We summarize the opinion here. The section on comparable license agreements is lengthy and worth reading in full.
The Northern District of California, in France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc., (Judge William H. Orrick) (August 28, 2014), addressed motions in limine concerning a variety of issues, including damages issues. We address a couple damages issues here.
The Southern District of Florida, in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-62369 (Judge Bloom) (Jan. 3, 2017), awarded Plaintiff an ongoing royalty and pre-judgment interest.
In an earlier order, the Court determined that Plaintiff was entitled to an ongoing royalty based on Defendant’s concession that it is continuing to sell the infringing personal watercrafts and that the jury’s royalty rate of $102.54 per unit set the “floor” for the ongoing royalty rate. The Court ordered the parties to negotiate an ongoing royalty rate, but mediation was unsuccessful.
The Eastern District of Texas, in ZiiLabs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., (Judge Roy S. Payne) (December 4, 2015), granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to exclude various opinions from plaintiff’s damages expert, Robert Mills.
Defendant sought to exclude expert’s reliance on litigation settlement license covering 100 patents as not economically comparable and not the most reliable license in the record.
Defendants sought to exclude expert’s reliance on licensing negotiations that never resulted in executed licenses, and were not technically comparable.
Defendant sought to exclude apportionment based on surface area of accused element on the chip.
The District of Delaware, in Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. North Am. Corp., (Judge Leonard P. Stark) (October 31, 2016), addressed motions to strike opinions of several experts related to damages. The experts in question were Michael Keeley (Finance), Joseph Dyro (Technical), Nitin Shah (Technical), Vijai Madisetti (Finance), and Michael Wagner (Finance). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions. The key motions are addressed below.

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