- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
January 15, 2021Robins Kaplan Partners Named to IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders Guide
-
January 12, 20212025 Goals - Our commitment to Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity
-
January 5, 2021Litigator Mark Hallberg Joins Robins Kaplan LLP
-
January 28, 2021COVID-19: The Show Did Not Go On
-
February 9, 2021Smart Phone Privacy and Data Security – How to Assess and Minimize Risk in the Current Reality
-
March 6, 2021With Our Voices 2021 Arc Gala
-
2020Clear Evidence Clarified
-
December 27, 2020Covid-19 Relief Bill Provides Long-Awaited Funding to Small Businesses and Individuals
-
December 17. 2020Covid-19 Divorce and Marital Property Agreements
-
January 15, 2021Financial Daily Dose 1.15.2021 | Top Story: As Unemployment Claims Surge, Biden Unveils $1.9T Covid Recovery Proposal
-
January 14, 2021Financial Daily Dose 1.14.2021 | Top Story: Intel Ousts CEO Robert Swan After Just Two Years
-
January 13, 2021Financial Daily Dose 1.13.2021 | Top Story: Visa Jettisons Plaid Takeover After DOJ Antitrust Challenge
The Sword and the Shield - How Recent Developments in Patent Damages Law Can Help Your Case as Both a Defendant and a Plaintiff
May 27, 2011
The past two years have seen significant evolution in patent damages law. A line of cases beginning with Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 5:01-cv-01974 (N.D.N.Y. March 30, 2009), and continuing through (most recently) Uniloc USA Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 98 USPQ2d 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (81 PTCJ 275, 1/7/11), has heightened the scrutiny with which courts approach reasonable royalty damages as calculated by the appropriate royalty base (entire market value rule) and royalty rate (comparable licenses, apportionment, or 25 percent rule). The conventional wisdom is that the progression of case law has inured almost exclusively to the benefit of accused infringers, by making it more difficult for patent holders to obtain large damages verdicts. But these cases present opportunities for patent holders as well, by providing patent holders with a framework for constructing a more persuasive damages case.
Reproduced with permission from BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 126, 05/27/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com/
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.