Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Reasonable Royalty Rate Must Be Tied to Facts
The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, No. 2016-2197 at 28 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2018). A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the Georgia-Pacific factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air. Id. Moreover, the reasonable royalty must be apportioned, so that it is based on the patented contribution and not unpatented aspects of the accused product. This can be achieved by adjusting either the royalty base or the royalty rate. However, the rate selected must be based on facts presented to the jury. It is insufficient to address the Georgia-Pacific factors superficially and then announce a royalty rate, without explaining how those factors or other evidence led to the selection of the rate. Id. at 24-25.
Exmark sued Briggs & Stratton for infringing U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,863 (the '863 Patent), which claims a lawnmower in its entirety. The district court granted summary judgment that patent claim 1 was not invalid and denied summary judgment that claim 1 was indefinite. After trial, the jury found that Briggs & Stratton willfully infringed Exmark's patent and awarded $24 million in damages. The district court doubled the award as enhanced damages, due to Briggs & Stratton's willful infringement.
Exmark's victory was short lived. On appeal, the Federal Circuit: 1) vacated summary judgment of no invalidity; 2) affirmed the denial of summary judgment on indefiniteness; and 3) ordered a new trial on damages.
Background on the '863 Patent
The '863 Patent claims an entire lawnmower. Extending over 60 lines in length, claim 1 describes a lawnmower comprising a deck having defined walls, means for moving the deck along the ground, blades and a detailed baffle system with both arcuate and elongated sections for directing grass that had been cut by the blades. The advantages arising from the use of the baffle system described in the claims supposedly included:
improved air and grass flow for reduced blowout, increased grass cut quality, minimized grass clumping, and more uniform discharge, all of which improve the mower's function and allows a mower to go faster in heavy grass areas.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?