Opinion ID: 209871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Incremental Profits

Text: The district court found that the market for coin changers was very profitable. J.A. 123. In reaching this conclusion, the district court relied on the incremental profit  rather than operating profitof both Mars and Coinco. Coinco argues that this was error. We disagree. We have never held that any one profit accounting methodology is appropriate in all industries, for all companies, in all cases. The selection of the appropriate method of profit accounting in the circumstances is properly left to the broad discretion of the district court. Here, the district court heard competing expert testimony and found that a profitability analysis based on incremental profits was appropriate. We defer to that finding. See, e.g., Monsanto, 488 F.3d at 981. Moreover, we reject Coinco's argument that a reasonable royalty can never result in an infringer operating at a loss. [A]lthough an infringer's anticipated profit from use of the patented invention is '[a]mong the factors to be considered in determining' a reasonable royalty, see Georgia-Pacific, 318 F.Supp. at 1120, the law does not require that an infringer be permitted to make a profit. Monsanto, 382 F.3d at 1384. See also State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1989) (There is no rule that a royalty be no higher than the infringer's net profit margin.).