Here, the district court precludes the proposed expert testimony of Dr. Russell Mangum, who intended to opine that the reasonable royalty base should consist of infringing Otis elevator installations because the patented feature …LEARN MORE
Two major holdings came out of this January 2011 decision: (1) the so-called 25% Rule is henceforth inadmissible, and (2) regarding the entire market value rule, plaintiff’s expert may not present to the jury the total sales …LEARN MORE
On remand after the Federal Circuit’s 2009 decision (Lucent v. Gateway et al.), the district court reconsiders the appropriate royalty base then reviews four new damages approaches by Raymond Sims, Lucent’s damages …LEARN MORE
This Virginia court ruled that the “patentee may base a reasonable royalty rate on the entire market value of an accused product where the evidence presented demonstrates that, in a hypothetical negotiation, it would be appropriate to do so.” …LEARN MORE
In this patent infringement case, Lucent sought reasonable royalties of $562 million for Microsoft’s use of a patent covering a date-picker feature of Outlook, based on an 8% royalty applied to Outlook sales. Microsoft countered that $6.5 million would be a reasonable royalty, and the jury awarded $358 million …LEARN MORE