PALO ALTO, California, April 26, 2011 -- “A reasonable royalty is the predominant measure of damages in patent infringement cases.” As such the admissible methods to determine a reasonable royalty are of foremost concern to patent holders looking to enforce their rights as well as accused infringers in defending their interests, writes Firm lawyer Robert Magee in the April 19, 2011 issue of Law360.
In this statement from the recent Uniloc v. Microsoft case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made two significant changes to the methods open to patentees in proving damages — eliminating the so-called “25 percent rule” and further limiting the applicability of the “entire market value rule,” Robert notes.
On both fronts, Uniloc and other recent cases may pose additional challenges (if only procedural ones) to patentees seeking to prove significant infringement damages. To discuss the impact of these widely discussed rule changes, it is helpful to review what the respective “rules” provided for.
Rather, Robert states in his article, as some might say following these and other recent Federal Circuit cases, it may be more helpful to discuss what the damages rules had previously been thought to provide for, and why the Federal Circuit has recently been engaging in fairly close scrutiny of any formulaic ruled-based approached to patent damages.
The complete Law360 article is available here.
About Baker Botts L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm with over 725 lawyers and a network of 13 offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients’ industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Throughout our 170-year history, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit www.bakerbotts.com.