Reprinted with permission from FindLaw.com
Jury damages awards in patent infringement litigation can be quite large. And at times, they have been reversed or reduced on appeal. This raises the issue of how patent infringement damages can be proven or defeated in a way at trial that will stick.
This issue is addressed in a recent article in the Business Valuation Monitor by Grant Thorton, titled "Value Creation Perspectives for Corporate Executives and the Investment Community." The article notes that a significant part of the value of a patent is the size of the royalty it can command. And, a core damages issue in cases is the method of apportioning the value of the subject patents.
Specifically, though patent infringement damages are suppose to be confined to a patented feature, damages potentially can be awarded to patented and unpatented elements if the patented portion causes the profits earned for the given product. It is in this area, obviously, that parties in litigation must focus their evidentiary efforts in seeking to prove up and disprove patent infringement damages on both sides of the litigation fence.
As the article points out, various forms of evidence can come into play here, such as customer data surveys regarding customer demand for patented elements, the lack or not of separate markets for patented an unpatented components, information about whether the patented component improves the unpatented product into which it is integrated in a major way, trade literature about whether the patented feature is important, and whether or not the patented and unpatented components together create a single outcome.
Plainly, providing such evidence in support or against patent infringement damages at trial can be expensive. But it is better to get it right on the front-end; otherwise, the desired result may not be achieved at trial, and even if it is, it could be thrown out on appeal.
Eric J. Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris. His focus includes information technology and intellectual-property disputes. This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only, and it should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners
This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets.
