Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factors 12 and 13 for a reasonable royalty

Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …

Patent infringement notice letter examples: Philippi-Hagenbuch v. Western Technology Service International

In Philippi-Hagenbuch v. Western Technology Service International, the Central District of Illinois made mixed findings as to whether patent infringement notice letters sent by Plaintiff’s counsel were sufficient under 35 U.S.C. § 287. The found that that the 2004 letter was sufficient to provide actual notice for damages for patent …

COVID-19 Update: Federal court procedures in response to the coronavirus

This post will document the approaches taken by various federal courts in response to the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak. It covers federal district and appellate courts. As the coronavirus situation evolves, I will try to update the court announcements.   Court COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Procedures SUPREME COURT S. Ct. Media Advisory Regarding …

Judgment of infringement affirmed and case remanded for proceedings on damages

Hafco Foundry and Machine v. GMS Mine Repair was decided on March 16, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of West Virginia. The jury found defendant GMS liable for willful infringement and awarded damages of $123,650 to plaintiff Hafco. On Hafco’s post-trial motion, the district court entered a permanent …

Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factor 11 for a reasonable royalty: use by the infringer

Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …

Withheld offer for sale renders patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct

GS CleanTech v. Adkins Energy was decided on March 2, 2020 on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. The Patents-in-Suit are “directed to the recovery of oil from a dry mill ethanol plant’s byproduct, called thin stillage.” The district court determined on summary judgment that defendant Adkins did not …

Marking statute limits damages even after the sale of unmarked product ceases

Artic Cat v. Bombadier Recreational was decided on February 19, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff Artic Cat entered into a license agreement with a third party, which “expressly stated that [the third party] had no marking obligations.” Thereafter, the third party began making and selling …

Summary judgement of noninfringement vacated because settlement agreement mooted the case

Serta Simmons Bedding v. Casper Sleep was decided on February 13, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. In September 2017, plaintiff Serta filed a patent infringement lawsuit against defendant Casper. While Casper’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement were pending, the parties executed a settlement agreement. …

Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factors 9 and 10 for a reasonable royalty

Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …

Federal Circuit on showing capacity to exploit the demand for lost profits under Panduit

Lost-profits damages are appropriate “whenever there is a reasonable probability that, but for the infringement, the patentee would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.” Versata Software v. SAP. A showing under the four-factor Panduit test establishes the required causation. These factors include: “(1) demand for the patented product, (2) …