Opinion ID: 208049
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factors 10 and 13

Text: Factor 10 is [t]he nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F.Supp. at 1120. Factor 13 is [t]he portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer. Id. These two factors, at least as applied to the facts of this case, both aim to elucidate how the parties would have valued the patented feature during the hypothetical negotiation. The evidence can support only a finding that the infringing feature contained in Microsoft Outlook is but a tiny feature of one part of a much larger software program. Microsoft's expert explained that Outlook's e-mail component is the part of Outlook that's most commonly used by our customers. Microsoft's witness also explained that, in addition to sending and receiving e-mails, a user can create electronic tasks and notes. Additionally, Outlook can be used as an electronic RolodexTM, storing contact information, such as phone numbers, addresses, and the like. It also has a fully functional calendar system, in which a user can record appointments, meetings, and other items on one's schedule. As Lucent's own expert testified, Outlook is a personal organizer that is an integrated suite of abilities to do e-mail, to set up contacts, to arrange meetings, to maintain your personal calendar, et cetera. In short, Outlook is an enormously complex software program comprising hundreds, if not thousands or even more, features. We find it inconceivable to conclude, based on the present record, that the use of one small feature, the date-picker, constitutes a substantial portion of the value of Outlook. The parties presented little evidence relating to Factor 13. Nonetheless, the only reasonable conclusion is that most of the realizable profit must be credited to non-patented elements, such as the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by [Microsoft]. As explained by Microsoft's expert Mr. Kennedy, Outlook consists of millions of lines of code, only a tiny fraction of which encodes the date-picker feature. Although the weighing of Factor 13 cannot be reduced to a mere counting of lines of code, the glaring imbalance between infringing and non-infringing features must impact the analysis of how much profit can properly be attributed to the use of the date-picker compared to non-patented elements and other features of Outlook. Here, numerous features other than the date-picker appear to account for the overwhelming majority of the consumer demand and therefore significant profit. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this evidence is that the infringing use of Outlook's date-picker feature is a minor aspect of a much larger software program and that the portion of the profit that can be credited to the infringing use of the date-picker tool is exceedingly small. For these reasons, Factors 10 and 13 of Georgia-Pacific provide little support for the jury's lump-sum damages award of $357,693,056.18.