Recent developments in patent damages cases
Recent cases have highlighted reasonable royalties and have focused on the concept of the smallest saleable unit, or the smallest piece of technology that contains the patented tech.
March 11, 2014 at 07:23 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
At the recent “Best Practices in Patent Monetization” conference in San Francisco, a number of industry experts shared their perspectives on the recent trends in the IP space. One topic that came up more than once was the topic of lawsuits, and whether collecting damages in a suit was a desirable method of monetizing patents.
To take a deep dive into the data, forensic accountant Elizabeth A. Dean, VP of TM Financial Services, LLC, examined recent relevant cases. First, she pointed out that the recent trend of staggering awards handed out in the last few years – with four different awards topping the billion dollar mark in the last seven years – seems to have abated a bit. The biggest award last year was the $290 million Apple/Samsung decision, which is a far lower total than the $1.7 billion Centocor Ortho v. Abbott award of 2009.
She cited the prevalence of “reasonable royalty” decisions. This concept dates back to the Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp ruling of 1970, which has been used extensively by courts for more than 40 years. Recent cases have highlighted reasonable royalties and have focused on the concept of the “smallest saleable unit,” or the smallest piece of technology that contains the patented tech.
In Internet Machines v. Alienware Corp (2013), the judge decided that the feature in question drove the sales of the product, and adjusted accordingly. On the other hand, in AVM Technologies v. Intel Corp. (2013), the presiding judge decided that the smallest saleable unit required further apportionment and required evidence that the feature in question drove consumer demand. Other cases that addressed the smallest saleable unit were Dynetix Design Solutions v. Synopsys, Tomita Technologies et al v. Nintendo et al, and Rembrandt Social Media v. Facebook. Each of these cases related in some way to the smallest saleable unit and reasonable royalties.
Dean also looked at FRAND (free, reasonable and non-discriminatory) cases, which deal with standards-setting bodies and standards-essential patents that are required to use those technologies. She cited two cases that dealt with Wi-Fi standards, Microsoft v. Motorola Mobility LLC and Innovatio IP Ventures v. Cisco Systems et al, which considered how essential the technology in question was to the standard, apportioning royalties per unit.
Both FRAND and reasonable royalties are important topics for any IP litigator to consider, and keeping up with current cases is essential.
For more on this topic, check out the following:
At the recent “Best Practices in Patent Monetization” conference in San Francisco, a number of industry experts shared their perspectives on the recent trends in the IP space. One topic that came up more than once was the topic of lawsuits, and whether collecting damages in a suit was a desirable method of monetizing patents.
To take a deep dive into the data, forensic accountant Elizabeth A. Dean, VP of TM Financial Services, LLC, examined recent relevant cases. First, she pointed out that the recent trend of staggering awards handed out in the last few years – with four different awards topping the billion dollar mark in the last seven years – seems to have abated a bit. The biggest award last year was the $290 million
She cited the prevalence of “reasonable royalty” decisions. This concept dates back to the Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp ruling of 1970, which has been used extensively by courts for more than 40 years. Recent cases have highlighted reasonable royalties and have focused on the concept of the “smallest saleable unit,” or the smallest piece of technology that contains the patented tech.
In Internet Machines v. Alienware Corp (2013), the judge decided that the feature in question drove the sales of the product, and adjusted accordingly. On the other hand, in AVM Technologies v. Intel Corp. (2013), the presiding judge decided that the smallest saleable unit required further apportionment and required evidence that the feature in question drove consumer demand. Other cases that addressed the smallest saleable unit were Dynetix Design Solutions v. Synopsys, Tomita Technologies et al v. Nintendo et al, and Rembrandt Social Media v. Facebook. Each of these cases related in some way to the smallest saleable unit and reasonable royalties.
Dean also looked at FRAND (free, reasonable and non-discriminatory) cases, which deal with standards-setting bodies and standards-essential patents that are required to use those technologies. She cited two cases that dealt with Wi-Fi standards,
Both FRAND and reasonable royalties are important topics for any IP litigator to consider, and keeping up with current cases is essential.
For more on this topic, check out the following:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeta Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Using Pirated Books to Train AI Models
In-House Lawyers Weigh In on How AI Will Revolutionize Dispute Resolution
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250