Blog March 23, 2020
No Requirement That a Reasonable Royalty Leave Room for Profit on Sales During Infringement
- Person title
Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team, ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2014) (Wallach, TARANTO, Chen) (D. Utah: Stewart) (2 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit vacates royalty computation, finding of no willful infringement, and denial of enhanced damages and fees. Federal Circuit also affirms decision not to include in damages computation a product not specifically found to infringe, and remands.
Royalty: In computing reasonable royalty, the district court erred by presuming that the value of the royalty must not match or exceed the infringer's profits during the period of infringement. While "actual profits earned during the period of infringement can be relevant," the district court could consider such profits only in an "indirect and limited way." Slip op. at 6-7. The hypothetical-negotiation analysis is forward-looking from a date just before the start of infringement, and is not backward-looking after the infringement has already occurred. Evidence of the infringer's actual profits may be probative of profits it expected to make at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, but the actual profits are not a cap to liability. In other words, the reasonable royalty does not have to "leave some room for profit" for the infringer. The district court further failed to consider that the infringer's actual profits were based on prices reflecting no royalty obligation. Had the parties negotiated a royalty prior to infringement, the infringer might have charged higher prices, thus changing its profit structure.
Willfulness & Fee-Shifting: The district court also erred in not conforming its willfulness analysis to Seagate's two-part test. For pre-summary judgment infringement, the fact that a separate court had denied a preliminary injunction did not resolve the willfulness issue because the injunction was denied for lack of personal jurisdiction and for insufficiencies in fact development. For post-summary judgment infringement, the district court never determined whether the infringer's design-around actually avoided infringement or whether it was implemented.
Damages Base: The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision not to include sales of a certain accused product model in the damages base, because the patentee failed to prove that the model actually infringed.
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 November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog June 18, 2015
Ordered Method Claim Does Not Bar Partly-Simultaneous Performance of Steps
Blog December 4, 2023
Amended FRE 702 on Expert Testimony Effective December 1, 2023
Blog December 1, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2023
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.