Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Calculating Reasonable Royalty Damages for Indirect Infringement

BY Dmitry Karshtedt
January 27, 2011

Many of the most publicized patent infringement suits are based on theories of indirect liability, codified in the Patent Act under 35 U.S.C. ' 271(b) (inducement of infringement) and ' 271(c) (contributory infringement). For example, a scenario that gives rise to inducement claims under ' 271(b) is the defendant's manufacture and sale of a device capable of performing a claimed method, accompanied by instructions on how to use the device in a manner that would infringe the method. See, e.g., Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (method for solving Rubik's cube); see also i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. granted, 2010 WL 3392402 (U.S. Nov. 29, 2010), (method of using custom XML editor). Since suing directly infringing end users, like one's customers, may be impractical or inadvisable, plaintiffs often opt to go after manufacturers who “aid and abet” infringing conduct. Given the importance of indirect liability in patent law, it is troubling that the state of the law on calculating damages in judgments of indirect infringement appears to be in disarray. The confusion centers on the relevance of the extent of directly infringing conduct for figuring a “reasonable royalty,” which is the statutory minimum for patent infringement damages, 35 U.S.C. ' 284; the reasonable royalty method is used far more frequently than the alternative “lost profits” approach.

Conflicting Pronouncements

In two recent cases decided only three weeks apart, the Federal Circuit gave conflicting pronouncements on the issue of whether trial courts can limit damages as a matter of law to proven instances of direct infringement. In Lucent Technologies v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3324 (2010), the court affirmed the jury's finding of infringement of Lucent's claims on a “method of entering information into fields on a computer screen without using a keyboard.” Customers directly infringed the claims by using Microsoft Outlook's appointment-scheduling feature, and the defendant was found indirectly liable on both inducement and contributory infringement theories. The court vacated the jury award of reasonable royalty damages (a lump sum of $357,693,056.18) as unsupported by evidence, but opined that “we have never laid down any rigid requirement that damages in all circumstances be limited to specific instances of infringement proven with direct evidence.” Id. at 1334. The court stated that such a damage-limiting rule would be inconsistent with the hypothetical negotiation approach to calculating reasonable royalty damages by assuming a scenario that would be “far removed from what parties regularly do during real world licensing negotiations. ' [For example], companies in the high-tech computer industry often strike licensing deals in which the amount paid for a particular technology is not necessarily limited to the number of times a patented feature is used by a consumer. A company licensing a patented method often has strong reasons not to tie the royalty amount strictly to usage.” Id. In the context of this case, if the defendant actually took a licensee for Lucent's patent, it would likely owe a royalty on each sale of a Microsoft Outlook software package ' whether or not the particular customer who bought the software actually used the patented appointment-scheduling feature.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Yachts, Jets, Horses & Hooch: Specialized Commercial Leasing Models Image

Defining commercial real estate asset class is essentially a property explaining how it identifies — not necessarily what its original intention was or what others think it ought to be. This article discusses, from a general issue-spot and contextual analysis perspective, how lawyers ought to think about specialized leasing formats and the regulatory backdrops that may inform what the documentation needs to contain for compliance purposes.

Hyperlinked Documents: The Latest e-Discovery Challenge Image

As courts and discovery experts debate whether hyperlinked content should be treated the same as traditional attachments, legal practitioners are grappling with the technical and legal complexities of collecting, analyzing and reviewing these documents in real-world cases.

Identifying Your Practice's Differentiator Image

How to Convey Your Merits In a Way That Earns Trust, Clients and Distinctions Just as no two individuals have the exact same face, no two lawyers practice in their respective fields or serve clients in the exact same way. Think of this as a "Unique Value Proposition." Internal consideration about what you uniquely bring to your clients, colleagues, firm and industry can provide untold benefits for your law practice.

Risks and Ad Fraud Protection In Digital Advertising Image

The ever-evolving digital marketing landscape, coupled with the industry-wide adoption of programmatic advertising, poses a significant threat to the effectiveness and integrity of digital advertising campaigns. This article explores various risks to digital advertising from pixel stuffing and ad stacking to domain spoofing and bots. It will also explore what should be done to ensure ad fraud protection and improve effectiveness.

Turning Business Development Plans Into Reality Image

This article offers practical insights and best practices to navigate the path from roadmap to rainmaking, ensuring your business development efforts are not just sporadic bursts of activity, but an integrated part of your daily success.