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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
While there was no marquee patent remedies decision in 2019, the courts still decided some important issues, especially in the context of reasonable royalties. 1. Expenses under Section 145 does not permit the recovery of USPTO attorney fees Under Section 145 of the Patent Act, when an applicant appeals an adverse …
Personal Audio v. CBS was decided on January 10, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found for plaintiff Personal Audio on infringement and invalidity as to three asserted claims, and awarded $1,300,000 as damages against defendant CBS. When the PTAB issued a final written decision …
Section 286 of the Patent Act “sets forth a limitation on damages.” Adams & Associates v. Dell. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for …
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 …
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 …
This post attempts to collect and present patent jury verdicts rendered in 2019. Only jury awards are included (no bench awards, arbitration awards, settlements, etc.). Figure 1: The median patent jury verdict in 2019 was $5,692,922. The low was $138,363, and the high was $585,000,000. There were 33 noted patent …