Why Some Billion-Dollar Jury Verdicts Are Wrong as a Matter of Law
The Federal Circuit's use of the reasonable royalty provision as a disgorgement-like remedy is contrary to 35 U.S.C. Section 284.
Patent-damages law is generally understood to allow a patentee that proves infringement to recover an award of reasonable royalties, even if the patentee is uninjured by the infringement. This understanding stems from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's 1978 decision in Panduit v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, which without analyzing the damages statute or citing Supreme Court caselaw, asserted that "when actual damages, e.g., lost profits, cannot be proved, the patent owner is entitled to a reasonable royalty."
Print and share
Authors
Notice
Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Perkins Coie, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Perkins Coie has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or any lawyer at Perkins Coie is not established until and unless Perkins Coie agrees to such a relationship as memorialized in a separate writing.