Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factors 4 and 5 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 applying Georgia-Pacific factors 2 and 3 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 applying Georgia-Pacific factor 1 for a reasonable royalty: comparable licenses by the patentee

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 …

Jury lump sum biologics royalty is supported by substantial evidence

Amgen v. Hospira was decided on December 16, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. Following the biosimilar trial, the jury found some patent claims (and not others) infringed and awarded plaintiff Amgen a reasonable royalty lump sum of $70 million. “Of the twenty-one accused drug substance batches, the …

Release payment for past infringement of standard essential patents is a jury question

TCL Communication v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was decided on December 5, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that declaratory defendant Ericsson’s proposed offers were not “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND). “Over Ericsson’s repeated assertions of its jury trial right,” …

Damages remanded for potential new trial based on appellate finding of reduced liability

VirnetX v. Apple is a nonprecendential case decided on November 22, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The district court entered summary judgment for plaintiff VirnetX on invalidity, determining that defendant Apple was precluded from pressing its proposed invalidity challenges because of previous litigation between the parties. The …

Royalty affirmed where expert started with a third party settlement and increased the value by 20%

Elbit Systems v. Hughes Network was decided on June 25, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The jury found that defendant Hughes infringed, and awarded plaintiff Elbit  $21,075,750 in reasonable royalty damages. The district court then denied Hughes post-trial motions for JMOL for non-infringement and for a new trial …

Federal Circuit on determining an ongoing royalty for patent infringement

Section 283 of the Patent Act provides that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” There are several types of relief for ongoing infringement that a court can …

Jury royalty relying on previous related jury verdict is affirmed – modified opinion

Sprint v. Time Warner is a nonprecedential case originally decided on November 30, 2018, and modified on March 18, 2019 on appeal from the District of Kansas. The Federal Circuit modified the opinion in response to Time Warner’s petition for rehearing. The opinion was slightly modified to better explain the damages …

Jury royalty relying on previous related jury verdict is affirmed

This opinion was superseded.    Sprint v. Time Warner is a nonprecedential case decided on November 30, 2018 on appeal from the District of Kansas. At trial the district court permitted Sprint to introduce evidence of a jury verdict in a related case by Sprint against another defendant. The jury found that …