The Federal Circuit’s recent Exmark v. Briggs-Stratton decision further confirms that there is no categorical rule about selecting a royalty base when litigating a reasonable royalty in order to apportion value to the patented invention, but that “apportionment can be addressed in a variety of ways … [s]o long as [the patent owner] adequately and reliably apportions between the improved and conventional features” of the accused product.  Thus, in this case, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent owner properly could use the entire lawn mower as the royalty base and was not limited to the innovative baffle component of the lawn mower as a royalty base.  This case continues the clarification made in the Federal Circuit’s CSIRO decision involving standard essential patents that recognized that “adaptability [in determining patent damages] is necessary because different cases present different facts” and rejected as “untenable” the argument that every damages model must start with the smallest salable patent practicing unit (SSPPU) (see our Dec. 3, 2015 post).

A persistent dispute in the standard essential patent (SEP) community is whether a patent owner may license its SEPs based on the sales price of the end product or if the patent owner must license its SEPs based on the sales price of a component within that end product (e.g., the smallest salable patent practicing unit or SSPPU).  The Federal Circuit’s Ericsson v. D-Link decision explained that the SSPPU theory was based on an evidentiary principle to avoid confusing jury’s in U.S. patent damages litigation (see our December 5, 2014 post). Yet some continued to claim that the SSPPU principle was a substantive rule of law required in all circumstances, including outside of litigation in private negotiations for SEP licenses.  The Federal Circuit’s CSIRO decision later held it was “untenable” to argue that all damages methodologies must start with the SSPPU (see our December 3, 2015 post).  Yet the debate somehow continued.  The Federal Circuit’s Exmark decision here may finally settle and dispel arguments that the royalty base cannot be the end product, but must be the SSPPU.  But we will see …
Continue Reading

Yesterday, in Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, No. 2013-1489, the Federal Circuit ruled that an expert’s damages testimony was not admissible.  The court’s ruling provides guidance on underlying circumstances required to establish a royalty base and a royalty rate as well as questions the viability of using the Nash Bargaining Solution’s 50/50 split of

On New Year’s Eve, Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker of the W.D. Wis. ruled that a patent pool’s demand letter listing hundreds of standard-essential-patents was not enough for the patent owner to provide its recipients with actual notice of alleged acts of patent infringement under the patent statute.  Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for JMOL regarding pre-suit

Judge Whyte recently issued his final ruling on Daubert and other evidence regarding RAND issues for the upcoming Realtek v. LSI jury trial based on his tentative ruling discussed in our Nov. 14 post.  Judge Whyte basically kept his tentative rulings and bases thereof, as discussed in our prior post.  He did provide additional

We previously discussed the opening comments filed by respondent Funai in the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation of whether Realtek and Funai infringe complainant LSI’s alleged 802.11 and H.264 standard essential patents (SEPs). Funai recently filed two sets of reply comments as part of the ITC’s review of the ALJ’s initial determination rejecting Realtek and

We recently posted about defendant ViewSonic’s Answer in Zenith Elec. v. Viewsonic, which Answer included FRAND-related affirmative defenses and counterclaims against plaintiffs Zenith, Panasonic and Philips, as well as a FRAND-related Third-Party claim against MPEG LA.  On Monday, December 2, Curtis filed a motion to bifurcate the trial in the related case brought by Zenith

Motorola has filed its opposition to Microsoft’s motion to transfer the appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling from the Federal Circuit to the Ninth Circuit (see our prior blog on Microsoft’s motion).  Recall that Microsoft argued that the appealed action was a contract action, its nature did not change when that action was consolidated

Yesterday Judge Whyte issued an Order with tentative rulings on motion’s in limine and Daubert motions for the upcoming Realtek v. LSI trial where the jury will determine (1) a RAND rate, (2) damages based on the court’s prior ruling that LSI breached its RAND obligations by seeking an exclusion order at the ITC before

Today Judge Robart issued an Order certifying a Rule 54(b) judgment in the Microsoft v. Motorola case where he had issued a first of its kind RAND rate ruling on Motorola H.264 and 802.11 standard essential patents (SEPs) and sustained the jury verdict that Motorola breached its RAND obligations in offering a license to Microsoft. 

Microsoft and Motorola are currently hurtling toward an August 26 jury trial in their RAND breach of contract dispute in Seattle.  But it looks like the SEP disputes between the parties are not limited to the United States, however.  In a letter filed with Judge James L. Robart’s court yesterday, Microsoft claims that it was