Blog October 5, 2022
NDTX continues trial to allow plaintiff's damages expert to address issues in damages theory
- Person title
The Northern District of Texas in Axcess Int'l, Inc. v. Savi Tech., Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-1033-F (N.D. Tex. January 25, 2013), ruled on defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's damages expert, Dr. Scott D. Hakala, from testifying on damages. The court held a pretrial hearing and afterward considered issues related to Dr. Hakala's expert report. Axcess submitted a supplemental document in an attempt address the court's concern that Dr. Hakala had inadequately apportioned the royalty base to account for the smallest salable patent practicing unit and failed to give a reliable assessment of the royalty rate. The court continued the trial to permit Axcess an opportunity to address the court's concerns and in the opinion outlined the additional requirements for Dr. Hakala's new expert report.
- Entire market value rule/smallest salable unit
The first issue concerned whether Dr. Hakala had improperly applied the entire market value rule or had apportioned for the smallest salable unit. The accused product was Savi's RFID tags that contained the accused feature plus, as Dr. Hakala admitted, other non-accused features. Dr. Hakala used the entire revenue of the RFID tags as the royalty base. The court found it unclear, however, whether Dr. Hakala had determined that the RFID tags were the smallest salable patent practicing unit and ordered further analysis from Dr. Hakala to demonstrate why he used the total revenue for all accused tags to compute the base or, if his conclusion was based on the entire market value rule, how the patented technology drives demand for all the accused tags.
An interesting point of this discussion was the court's recognition that the smallest salable unit can be larger than the patented feature. The court described the facts in Cornell and LaserDynamics and how in both cases the smallest salable unit was larger than the accused features in the products at issue. Regarding Cornell: "The Cornell court rejected the plaintiff's expert's testimony because he calculated the royalty base using the 'computer brick' rather than the processor, which the court found to be the smallest salable patent-practicing unit. However, the claimed technology was only 'a component of a component within the processor.'" Slip op. at 4. Regarding LaserDynamics: "[T]he patent involved was 'directed to a method of optical disc discrimination which essentially enables an optical disc drive ('ODD') to automatically identify the type of optical disc e.g., a compact disc ('CD') versus a digital video disc ('DVD') that is inserted into the ODD.' LaserDynamics, Inc., 694 F.3d at 56. The court found that the smallest salable patent practicing unit was the ODD, not the patented component." Slip op. at 4-5.
- Royalty rate comparable licenses
The court first considered Georgia-Pacific factor #1: royalties received by the patentee for licensing the patent in suit. Dr. Hakala relied on a draft agreement between Axcess and Honeywell that contained a 10% royalty rate, but that was negotiated before any patents had issued. The royalty provision was deleted prior to execution of the agreement, and instead Honeywell decided to purchase the product. Dr. Hakala tried to overcome this problem by contending that Honeywell's purchase of the product included an implied license to practice any patents once they issued and that 10% royalty would be indicative of the target royalty rate for the patents.
The court rejected this argument because Factor #1 relates to royalties received for the patent in suit. Plus, the court found the draft provision of questionable comparability because the draft agreement covered seven different patents. The court ordered Dr. Hakala to provide more detail and analysis regarding Factor #1, including a "more robust analysis of the actual agreement ... rather than rely on the draft royalty provision." Slip op. at 12.Next, the court considered Hakala's analysis of Georgia-Pacific Factor #2 rates paid by licensees for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit. Here, the court found that Hakala had once again provided insufficient evidence of comparability for license agreements related to Savi's technology. The court wanted a discussion of how the patents in the Savi-related agreements and the corresponding licenses compared to the patent in suit and the hypothetical agreement at issue. The court stated: "Once Dr. Hakala provides a basis for finding comparability, then '[t]he degree of comparability of the [Savi] license agreements as well as any failure on the part of [Dr. Hakala] to control for certain variables are factual issues best addressed by cross examination and not by exclusion.' ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012)." Slip op. at 13.
- Lost profits
Here, the dispute was over Dr. Hakala's use of a "channel partner theory" that he claimed was used to calculate an alternative royalty figure. Savi argued that it was actually a lost profits theory. In this theory, Dr. Hakala estimated Axcess's target incremental profit margin and multiplies it by the revenues realized from the accused tags to determine a reasonable royalty. The court agreed this was a lost profits analysis because the product of profit margin and total revenues equals gross profit. The court thus required to prove "but for" causation for lost profits.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog April 26, 2022
Marking and Pre-Suit Damages: What Happens when a Failure to Mark Is Followed by a Period of Compliance with the Marking Statute?
Article April 19, 2022
Fish Principals Author The Licensing Journal Article "Patent Licensing"
Blog July 30, 2021
Does Section 287(a) Apply to Agreements That Do Not Contain a Patent License?
Blog March 24, 2017
Federal Circuit Opinion Astrazeneca v. Apotex Cites Patent Damages Treatise
Blog December 30, 2016
EDTX denies exclusion of settlement license and "real estate" apportionment
Blog December 23, 2016
DDE denies request to strike lost profits opinion re non-patented items; addresses test data admissibility
Article December 14, 2016
Daily Journal article "How to build Daubert-proof patent damages cases"
Blog December 7, 2016
Federal Circuit Opinion Asetek Danmark a/s v. CMI USA Inc. Cites Patent Damages Treatise
Blog October 6, 2016
EDTX denies exclusion of settlement license and "real estate" apportionment
Blog May 15, 2023
Legal Alert: Minimizing Patent TRO and PI Risk in Europe
Article March 22, 2023
Principals Anita Meiklejohn and Caleb Bates Co-Author Article for One Nucleus Annual Review 2023
Blog March 17, 2023
Legal Alert: The USPTO’s Transition to Electronic Patent Issuance and Reduction in Period Between Issue Notification and Issue Date
Article March 8, 2023
Senior Principal Terry Mahn Authors Medical Device + Diagnostic Industry Article "This Company's False Compliance With CISPR 11 Resulted in a $12 Million FCA...
Article February 17, 2023
Principals Patrick Darno and Peter Fasse Author "Patent Strategies for Protecting Bioinformatics Inventions" for IAM
Article February 3, 2023
Fish & Richardson Attorneys Author IAM Article "Neglect Begets Opportunity in Femtech IP"
Article November 18, 2022
Principal Michael Shepherd Authors Law360 Expert Analysis, "Why PTAB 'Step 2B' Reversal Rates Are Falling"
Article October 20, 2022
Life Sciences Entrepreneur Sourcebook | Intellectual Property: What It Is and Why You Should Care
Article October 12, 2022
Principals Matt Colvin and Betsy Flanagan Author IAM Article "Five Tips to Create a Battle-Ready Portfolio From the Get-Go"
Article September 29, 2022