Maximizing the Strength of Intellectual Property in Today's Marketplace
Determining a fair and reasonable royalty is often . . . a difficult chore, seeming often to involve more the talents of a conjurer than those of a judge.
July 1, 2012
Determining a fair and reasonable royalty is often . . . a difficult chore, seeming often to involve more the talents of a conjurer than those of a judge. 1
Although consumer surveys have long been used in trademark, false advertising, and antitrust cases, the use of such surveys to demonstrate the value of patented technology in patent cases is a relatively recent phenomenon. This phenomenon has developed largely in response to the increased scrutiny that the Federal Circuit has placed on damage awards in patent infringement cases over the past few years—a trend illustrated by its recent decision in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. As the Federal Circuit has explained, damage awards in patent infringement cases must be supported by sound economic theory and tied to the patented invention’s “footprint in the marketplace.” 2 In addition, when a patent covers only one feature of an accused product, a patent holder wishing to present evidence regarding the overall profitability of the accused product must demonstrate that the patented feature creates consumer demand for the product or its components. A well-crafted consumer survey can provide powerful evidence of an invention’s value in the marketplace—or can be used to refute an unfounded damage claim. Counsel responsible for managing patent litigation should understand both the potential role of survey evidence and the common pitfalls associated with the use of such evidence at trial.
1. ResQNet.com v. Lansa, 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
2. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ( citing ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Copyright © 2012 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted from The Licensing Journal, June/July 2012, Volume 32, Number 6, pages 29–38, with permission from Aspen Publishers, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York, NY, 1-800-638-8437, www.aspenpublishers.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.
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.