Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factors 7 and 8 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 6 for a reasonable royalty: convoyed sales

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 …

Denial of summary judgment of invalidity does not conclusively show objective reasonableness regarding fees

Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez was decided on January 13, 2020, on appeal from the Western District of Washington. Plaintiff Eko filed a declaratory judgment and an infringement action against defendant ARM. On summary judgment, the district court granted Eko declaratory judgment of noninfringement but denied the motion as …

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 …

Fees warranted because of NPE plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct and to deter future abusive litigation

Blackbird v. Health In Motion was decided on December 16, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. “[S]hortly before discovery was scheduled to end,” defendant Health In Motion filed a motion for summary judgment. After the motion was fully briefed, without notice to Health, plaintiff Blackbird filed a …

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 …

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 …

Case exceptional where Plaintiff did not perform a simple test of the publicly available accused products

ThermoLife v. GNC was decided on May 1, 2019 on appeal from the Southern District of California. Plaintiff ThermoLife brought suit against Defendant GNC, and other defendants, for patent infringement. This was one of 81 infringement lawsuits the exclusive licensee filed. The patents relate to “methods and compositions involving the amino …