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. 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, 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,

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.


Christopher K. Larus


Chair, National IP and Technology Litigation Group

Related Publications

December 8, 2022
Lessons From MMAS Research About Dispositive Pitfalls in Copyright Litigation
David Martinez, Austin Miller - Los Angeles & San Francisco Daily Journal
November 19, 2022
How to Use the USPTO Patent Public Search Tool
Miles Finn, Rajin Olson, Kelson Bain, and Ian LaForge - IPWatchdog
October 2022
In No Uncertain Terms
Bryan Mechell - The Robins Kaplan Quarterly
September 13, 2022
Patent Value: Scoring Patents Using Characteristics Of Patents In Litigation
Christopher K. Larus, Miles A. Finn, Congnan Zhan, Joseph (Yu) Chen, and Shelley Gilliss - les Nouvelles
September 2, 2022
Trade Dress Through a Trial Lens: Six Strategy Tips For Litigants
Christopher Larus, William Manske - Managing IP
Back to Top