- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- 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
-
September 22, 2020New York Law Journal Recognizes Hollis Salzman as a Trailblazer
-
September 18, 2020Teresa Fariss Mcclain Recognized as Woman worth Watching by Profiles in Diversity Journal
-
September 17, 2020Robins Kaplan LLP Files New Lawsuit Against Delbarton School and the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey on behalf of Survivors of Child Sex Abuse
-
September 26, 20202020 Virtual Walk Like MADD Minnesota
-
September 26, 2020California Rural Legal Assistance 2020 Tardeada
-
September 29, 2020The Profound Importance of Authentic Leadership, Especially During a Crisis
-
Summer 2020Following a Varied Legal Career, Judge Jonathan Kobes Begins on the Eighth Circuit
-
September 22, 2020Herbal Patent Protection
-
August 24, 2020Hot off the Presses: California Further Regulates Out-of-State Adjusters in the Wake of Record-Breaking Catastrophic Losses
SEPs Don't Need A Different Reasonable Royalty Analysis
March 24, 2015
A modified Georgia‐Pacific analysis? A different selection of Georgia‐Pacific factors to include in the damages jury instruction for each case? A restriction on the date of hypothetical negotiation for any standard‐essential patent? Please, courts, do not continue to impose these requirements or adopt any new “rules” specific to reasonable royalty damages for SEPs. The fact that a patented invention is essential to practicing a standard does not necessitate a change in the damages analysis, if carried out properly.
All Content © 2003‐2015, Portfolio Media, Inc.
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.