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 Publications

June 2020
Trade Secrets: Safe as Houses
Christopher Larus, David Prange, Alyssa Bixby-Lawson - Intellectual Property Magazine
June 4, 2020
May 6, 2020
Hatch-Waxman Litigation Venue Update Post-Google
Kelsey McElveen, Ellen Levish - Bloomberg Law
May 4, 2020
Explaining The Almost Unexplainable: Source Code Evidence At Trial
David Prange, Benjamen Linden - LegalTech News
April 7, 2020
Protecting Confidential Information When Sheltering in Place
David Prange, Chris Larus - Corporate Counsel
Back to Top