Source: https://steiniplaw.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/feature-comment-the-impact-of-uniloc-usa-inc-v-microsoft-corp-on-patent-damages-under-28-u-s-c-%C2%A71498a/
Timestamp: 2018-04-24 00:51:55
Document Index: 734970376

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1498', '§1498', '§1498', '§1498', '§ 1498', 'art, 320']

Feature Comment: The Impact of Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. on Patent Damages under 28 U.S.C. §1498(a) | Stein Ip Blawg
In theory, starting without this 25% rule should result in lower royalty rates. For instance, in Uniloc, there was evidence that the actual starting royalty rate used in licensing within the industry was rarely 25%. At the same time, the starting point in a particular industry is generally not well known or publicized. Therefore, what is likely to happen is experts will be sought who start at higher rates (and can testify that their normal starting point for negotiations is high), and then to a negotiated rate. Indeed, it was Dr. Gemini’s whole reliance on a rule of thumb as opposed to testifying that, in fact, the industry standard is to start at 25% and work downward which doomed his testimony. Therefore, it is just as likely that the battle of the experts will now focus on justifying a high starting royalty rate in order to obtain, from the plaintiff’s point of view, an adequate measure of damages. And this battle will extend into damages under 28 U.S.C. §1498 in like manner.
[2] Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Jerry Stouck, Patent Owners, Take Heed Of Zoltek Ruling, IP Law 360 (July 30, 2007), a copy of which is available at http://www.gtlaw.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/contentpilot-core-2301-5927/pdfCopy.pdf?view=attachment (last visited April 8, 2010).
[3] 28 U.S.C. §1498. See also James G. McEwen, David S. Bloch, Richard M. Gray, Intellectual Property in Government Contracts, pp. 145-148 (Oxford University Press 2009); David R. Lipson, We’re Not Under Title 35 Anymore: Patent Litigation Against the United States Under 28 U.S.C. §1498(a), 33 Pub. Cont. L. J. 243, 247 (Fall 2003); TVI Energy Corporation v. Blane, 806 F.2d 1057, 1059-60 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (section 1498 exists “to relieve private government contractors from expensive litigation with patentees, possible injunctions, payment of royalties, and punitive damages”); Robishaw Eng’g v. United States, 891 F.Supp. 1134, 1141 n. 12 (E.D. Va. 1995) (“the primary purpose of § 1498 immunity is to prevent interference with the government’s procurement of needed materials”).
[4] James G. McEwen, David S. Bloch, Richard M. Gray, Intellectual Property in Government Contracts, pp. 149-150 (Oxford University Press 2009).
[5] See Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120) (S.D.N.Y. 1970); see also Calhoun v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 41, 453 F.2d 1385 (Ct. Cl. 1972); Amerace Esna Corp. v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 175, 462 F.2d 1377 (1972); Pitcairn v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 168, 547 F.2d 1106 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1051 (1978); Penda Corp. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 533, 573 (1993); Standard Mfr’g Co. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 748 (Ct. Cl. 1999).
[6] See Gargoyles Inc. v. United States, 113 F3d 1572, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Data Enterprises, GSBCA 15607, 2004-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 32,539; Imperial Mach. & Foundry Corp. v. United States, 69 Ct. Cl. 667 (1930); Penda Corp. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 533, 573 (1993).
[7] See Decca Ltd. v. United States, 640 F.2d 1156, 1167 (Ct. Cl. 1980); see also Shearer v. United States, 101 Ct.Cl. 196, cert. denied, 323 U.S. 676 (1944); Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. United States, 99 Ct.Cl. 1 (1942), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 320 U.S. 1 (1943); Olsson v. United States, 87 Ct.Cl. 642, 25 F.Supp. 495 (1938), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 621 (1939); Penda Corp. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 533, 573-574 (1993).
[8] Decca Limited, 640 F.2d at 1167, and n. 22; Leesona Corp. v. United States, 599 F.2d 958 (Ct. Cl.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 991 (1979); see Penda Corp., 29 Fed. Cl. at 574 (“savings to the government are not used as a measure of compensation in preference to a reasonable royalty, but these savings may be employed in estimating the amount a willing buyer would offer a willing seller”) (citations omitted).
[9] 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11, Civ Case No. 2010-105, -1055 (Fed. Cir. January 4, 2011).
[10] 42 USPQ2d 1760, 1768 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
This entry was posted in 28 USC 1498(a), Damages, Government IP, Patents by Stein IP LLC. Bookmark the permalink.