Agere Systems v. Sony Corp (E.D. Tex. 2008).
In November 2008, a jury returned a verdict finding that Sony had induced infringement of Agere’s patent by marketing and selling its PlayStation Portable (PSP) game. It is interesting to look at the simplicity of the jury form:
Post-verdict motions are still pending in the Sony case, but an appeal is expected.
In Spine Solutions v. Medtronic (D.Del. 2008), the jury found that the asserted claims were non-obvious and that the patentee was entitled to lost profit damages.
Some of the damages were also awarded based on a “reasonable royalty” of 18%.
Honestly 6… I’ve posted on this board maybe once, but now is the time i speak up. Every time you say something, it makes people cringe. Try to keep your mouth shut and learn something. Take the cotton out of your ears, and put it in your mouth. You’re making us examiners look bad. Thank you at least for taking the word “examiner” out of your name. And good luck getting your law degree with your understanding of percentages…
Note in the typical jury question example here of Spine Solutions v. Medtronic that the jury is hit directly and very prominently with the CAFC-imposed “clear and convincing evidence” burden to find invalidity for any reason. When is some litigator going to wise up to the vulnerability of that to a Supreme Court challenge, especially for prior art of unchallenged date and authenticity, and thus make the necessary technical challenge to that jury instruction in order to preserve the right to appeal it?
No, they should use one of their lifelines and call 6 for the answer.
“I suppose if the profit was 70% then maybe. Even still, it would have to be a daggon critical part of the overall product before it was “reasonable”. I think they probably just took their cues from attorneys.”
How else are jurors supposed to determine what a “reasonable royalty” is? I suppose that you’d prefer the jurors come up with a different “reasonable royalty” by delving into their own personal experiences?
As they should.
I suppose if the profit was 70% then maybe. Even still, it would have to be a daggon critical part of the overall product before it was “reasonable”. I think they probably just took their cues from attorneys.
metoo,
That post was by 6 – you’ve got to consider the source.
Case in point: Mitutoyo Corp v. Central Purchasing (Fed. Cir. 2007) – the CAFC affirmed the lower court’s reasonable royalty rate of 29.2%. It all depends on the particular facts of the case, including such things as the infringer’s profit margin (which was 70% in the Mitutoyo case).
I do not know the facts of this particular case, but it is nonsense to assume that 18% could never be a reasonable royalty for purposes of patent infringement damages.
idk where they find people that are willing to write 18% as a reasonable royalty for infringing a patent. Seriously, do they specifically take only people who have never been to college/HS and don’t understand what a % is?
Comments are closed.