SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  41
November 13, 2014
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Utah State Bar Intellectual Property Section
Presenters
2
 Cory D. Sinclair
J.D., Ph.D. Economics
Parsons Behle & Latimer
 John N. Zarian
J.D., M.S. Finance
Parsons Behle & Latimer
Overview
3
● Trends in patent damages in the
post-Uniloc environment
● New approaches in calculating
patent damages
● Recent developments in damages
awards in trademark cases
● Recent decisions related to proving
copyright damages
● Using alternative theories of
damages in trade secrets cases
“Call the patent office. Copyright the
name ‘Green Goblin.’ I want a quarter
every time somebody says it.”
4
I. Damages in Patent Cases
5
Patent Damages
 28 U.S.C. 284
Upon finding for the claimant [patent holder] the court shall award
the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the
infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the
use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest
and costs as fixed by the court. … [T]he court may increase the
damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.
 Damages
– Lost Profits (causation requirement)
– Reasonable Royalty (floor)
– Interest and costs
– Attorney fees (exceptional cases)
6
 Lost Profits
– Lost Sales
– Price Erosion
– Unpatented Items
– Future Lost Profits
– Damage to Reputation and Goodwill
– Miscellaneous Business Losses
 Reasonable Royalty
– Georgia-Pacific Hypothetical Negotiation
– Analytical Approach (apportion projected profits)
– 25% Rule of Thumb (rejected)
– Established Royalty for the Patent?
– Many Licenses in a Small Range of Rates?
– Cost Savings / Incremental Benefits?
Patent Damages:
Methodologies
7
Some Key Concepts Relating to
Reasonable Royalty Damages
8
Entire Market Value
Smallest Salable
Patent-Practicing
Unit (“SSU”)
Further apportionment?
 Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (The entire market value rule (“EMVR”) allows a patentee to
claim damages based on the entire market value of an accused product
containing patented and non-patented components only where the patented
feature creates the “basis for customer demand.”).
 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The
Supreme Court and this Court’s precedents do not allow consideration of
the entire market value of accused products for minor patent improvements
simply by asserting a low enough royalty rate.”).
 LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67-68 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“The entire market value rule is a narrow exception to this
general rule [that royalties be based on the smallest salable patent-
practicing unit].”) (“It is not enough to merely show that the [patented
feature] is viewed as valuable, important or even essential … . [Rather,
plaintiff must show] “the presence of that [patented feature] is what
motivates consumers to buy a [product] in the first place.”).
Issue #1: Current State of the Entire
Market Value Rule (“EMVR”)
9
 Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 6:08-CV-88 (Dkt. 478)
(EDTX 4/4/11) (JMOL vacating $625M jury award)
– Jury could not have reasonably relied on certain “consumer surveys” to
find that customer demand for patented features created basis for
customer demand for the revenues used in the royalty base
 NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. LA CV10-
03257 JAK (CDCA 10/23/13) (granting in part and denying in part
motion to exclude surveys relied upon by plaintiff’s damages experts)
– Rejecting argument that surveys did not attempt to determine if consumers cared
whether data formatted for computer email was sent to and from a local area
network at a lower transmit power level, as required by the asserted claims
– Accepting some questions that appeared to be intended to avoid bias in the
answers, while rejecting a question seeking to value something that was
significantly broader than the claimed invention without adequate justification
– Rejecting a second survey that “was not constructed in a reliable manner”
Issue #2: Using Consumer Surveys
10
 Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard, 609 F.Supp.2d 279
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009) (J. Rader, by designation) (slashing
$184M jury award to $53M)
– Plaintiff’s expert could not show the patented component was
the basis for demand for servers, workstations, etc.
– Patent was directed to Instruction Reorder Buffer (IRB)
– IRB was only one feature of the CPU
– But CPU was the smallest salable patent-practicing unit (“SSU”)
– Therefore, damages allowed on CPU as a royalty base
 Q: Can plaintiff stop at the SSU if the patent is directed to
an SSU feature, or is the SSU just a starting point?
Issue #3: Smallest Salable Patent-
Practicing Unit (“SSU”) & Apportionment
11
 LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67-68 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (“[I]n any case involving multi-component products, patentees may not
calculate damages based on sales of the entire product, as opposed to the smallest
salable patent-practicing unit ….”) (suggesting that apportionment is not required)
 Internet Machines LLC v. Alienware Corp., Case No. 6:10-CV-23 (EDTX 6/19/13)
(Dkt. 615) (“Because Mr. Bratic used the smallest unit as his royalty base, additional
apportionment is unwarranted and the narrow exception of the entire market value
rule is inapplicable.”) (holding that apportionment is not required)
 AVM Tech., LLC v. Intel. Corp., Case No. 10-610-RGA (DDE 1/4/13) (Dkt. 230)
(“The use of a saleable unit that is greater than the patented feature is going to
introduce Uniloc error … .”) (holding that apportionment is required).
 Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsis, Inc., Case No. C 11-05973, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 120403, at *7-12 (NDCA 8/22/13) (“Dr. Black relied on the blanket
assumption that, once he selected the smallest saleable unit – in this case the entire
VCS product – he could end the analysis, his determination of the royalty base is
fundamentally flawed.”) (holding that apportionment is required).
SSU & Apportionment – cont’d
12
 “The basis for” customer demand or “a
substantial basis” of consumer demand?
– LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 63 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“basis for customer demand”); Lucent Technologies, Inc.
v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (same); Rite-
Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (same).
– Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
2011)(EMVR applies “where the patented feature creates the ‘basis for
customer demand’ or ‘substantially create[s] the value of the component
parts’”); Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d at 1337
(suggesting EMVR applies if there is evidence the patent method is “the
basis” or “a substantial basis” of consumer demand).
Issue #4: Efforts to Avoid
EMVR, SSU & Apportionment
13
 Artful claim selection and application
– System-level claims or broad apparatus claims may cover an
entire multi-featured product, e.g., a “computer”
– Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian, Case No. 2:08-CV-01307-AJS
(W.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2012)
• Inventive feature was certain RPM software, but two of the dependent
claims included a linear accelerator (in prior art)
• Varian argued that including the linear accelerator in royalty base was like
including the price of a TV in the royalty base for a patented DVR that
mentions a TV in the claims. The Court stated that the better analogy would
be for a TV that had a built in DVR, where the TV was a critical component
of the whole patented apparatus.
• “[B]ecause the Court has concluded the linear accelerators are a part of the
patented apparatus and not just a mere accessory, the added value of the
linear accelerators may be used in determining the royalty base.”
Efforts to Avoid EMVR, SSU &
Apportionment – cont’d
14
Licenses Used to Prove Damages Must be “Comparable”
 Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.,
609 F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“comparisons of past patent
licenses to the infringement must account for ‘the technological and
economic differences’ between them”); ResQNet.com, Inc. v.
Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 868-69 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversing as to
damages) (past license evidence used to calculate royalty rates
must be reasonably related to claimed invention); Lucent
Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (“licenses relied on by the patentee in proving damages
[must be] sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical license at issue
in suit.”).
Issue #5: “Comparable” Licenses
15
Q: If comparable licenses are based on total revenue of devices
similar to accused device, must patentee prove “the basis for
customer demand”?
 Mondis Tech. Ltd. V. LG Elecs., Inc., 2011 WL 2417367 (EDTX
6/14/11) (if licenses are truly comparable, royalties may be permitted
based on total product revenue in license agreements without also
proving “the basis for customer demand).
 But see Lighting Ballast Control v. Philips Elecs., 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 96148 (NDTX 6/10/11) (improper to use entire revenue
without proving “the basis for customer demand”).
“Comparable” Licenses – cont’d
16
 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
– “[A]s a matter of Federal Circuit law, [ ] the 25 percent rule of thumb is a
fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypo-
thetical negotiation. Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus
inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it
fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to the facts of the case at issue.”
 WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
– Four patents directed to automated delivery of professional services and
backing up client data; accused products were programs to generate and
send reminders to clients of upcoming patent/trademark deadlines
– On appeal, vacated $8M award and remanded for new trial on damages
– Experts must fully analyze Georgia-Pacific factors, not cursorily recite them
– Considering, without deciding, whether a lump sum award was a fully paid-
up license that would have obviated any ongoing royalties
– Illustrates care that must be taken in presenting a damages case
Issue #6: 25% “Rule of Thumb” &
Other Unsupported Royalty Awards
17
Seventh-Inning Stretch …
18
 Protegrity Corporation v. Voltage Security, Inc., Case No.
3:10-CV-755 RNC (DCT 12/21/13) (data encryption)
– Damages for lost profits determined using the Panduit factors
– One factor is “absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes”
– MSJ granted because expert failed to address whether there
were non-infringing alternatives available in the market
 TQP Development, LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Case
No. 2:08-CV-471-WCB (EDTX 8/10/12) (Dkt. 598)
– Non-infringing alternatives offered on the issue of reasonable
royalty damages; this was not a lost profits case
– Alternative ciphers available at time of hypothetical negotiation
– Defendants’ expert could be allowed to testify that non-infringing
alternatives would impact any hypothetical negotiation
Issue #7: Non-Infringing Alternatives
and Reasonable Royalty Damages
19
 Simply put, the Nash bargaining solution – named after Dr. John Nash (“A
Beautiful Mind”) – is the most mutually beneficial result for both parties.
 Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 798 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1120 (N.D. Cal.
2011) (rejecting Nash bargaining solution as “impenetrable” and because it
essentially amounts to an assumption of 50% of the infringer’s profits).
 Mformation Techs., Inc. v. RIM, 2012 WL 1142537 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29,
2012) (allowing Nash bargaining solution as a “check” on royalty rate).
 Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., Case No. 09-CV-2319 BEN
NLS (SDCA 11/26/12) (Dkt. 572) (allowing Nash bargaining solution in
“combination” with real world observations and tied to the facts of the case).
 VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 6:10-CV-00417-LED (Dkt.
745) (EDTX 3/1/13) (allowing Nash bargaining solution profit splitting model).
 Suffolk Tech. LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc., Case No. 1:12-CV-625
(EDVA 4/12/13) (Dkt. 518) (rejecting use of Nash bargaining solution
because it was not tied to the facts of the case).
Issue #8: Nash Bargaining Solution
20
 Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology
Group, Ltd., Case No. 2:09-CV-00290-NBF (MDPA
11/2912) (Dkt. 672) (semiconductor chips made abroad)
– Allowing but not endorsing “novel” theory of damages touching
on foreign sales based on usage in the United States
– Marvell used the patented method during its U.S. “sales cycle”
and argued “but for” that cycle, would not have made sales
 Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 2012 WL 5267014
(DNV 10/25/12) (chips made and sold abroad)
– Court allowed plaintiff to seek royalties on chips made abroad,
based on evidence of direct sales into the U.S. and estimates
that other chips were making their way into the U.S.
Issue #9: Foreign Sales
21
II. Damages in Trademark Cases
22
 McCarthy on Trademarks notes that the public policy and theoretical
basis underlying monetary awards have received inadequate judicial
attention and have remained confused and undefined.
 Monetary remedies available under the Lanham Act include
– Defendant’s profits
– Plaintiff’s damages
– Reasonable royalty
– Costs of lawsuit
– Attorneys’ fees (“exceptional cases”)
 Between 1947 and 2005, only 5.5% of cases decided obtained
monetary damages
Trademark Damages
23
 Equitable relief:
– Defendant’s profits (flows from infringer’s unjust enrichment and
need for deterrence)
• Tenth Circuit requires showing of willfulness or bad faith for
Defendant’s profits
• However, many circuits do not require a showing of actual
confusion to be awarded defendant’s profits
• Plaintiff’s burden is to establish infringer’s sales. Burden
then shifts to infringer to establish deductions.
– Typical deductions include variable costs (labor, raw materials, COGS)
– Fixed costs, taxes, excessive expenses are not deductible
Trademark Damages (cont.)
24
 Legal relief:
– Plaintiff’s lost profits
• Tenth Circuit allows circumstantial evidence of actual confusion (such as
survey results) to support an award of actual damages
• Recognized methodology includes revenue lost less expenses that would
have been incurred to earn those revenues
– Reasonable royalty
• Unclear in Tenth Circuit whether Reasonable royalty award is allowed when
there is no evidence of plaintiff’s willingness to license.
• Ninth Circuit has previously held no reasonable royalty unless evidence of
past licenses
• Seventh Circuit has held reasonable royalty may be appropriate even if no
evidence of past licenses
• Generally follows Georgia-Pacific factors in determining appropriate rate
Trademark Damages (cont.)
25
 Legal relief cont.
– Attorney fees for prevailing parties in exceptional cases
• Exceptional cases often those defined as purposeful infringement or truly
egregious violations.
– Recovery of costs
• Discretionary with the court, but typically include filing fees, witness fees,
and court reporter fees
– Statutory damages for counterfeiting cases
• Similar to copyright, range of options and increase with a finding of
willfulness.
• Actual damages not required to receive statutory damages
Trademark Damages (cont.)
26
 Is Reasonable royalty the future?
– QS Wholesale, Inc. v. World Marketing, Inc., 2013 WL
1953719 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2013)
• Reasonable royalty award permitted even though plaintiff had not
previously licensed mark;
• Relied on expert testimony of similarity between mark and other
similar clothing licensing deals
– ITT Corp. v. Xylem Group, LLC, 2013 WL 4011057 (N.D. Ga.
Aug. 5, 2013)
• Plaintiff permitted to present evidence of reasonable royalty damage
calculation even though no license had ever been granted
• Court relied heavily on policy considerations
Trademark Damages (cont.)
27
III. Damages in Copyright Cases
28
Basics:
– Under Section 504 of the Copyright Act, an
infringer is liable for either (i) owner’s actual
damages, or (ii) statutory damages
– Most common form of relief in copyright cases
is equitable, including preliminary and
permanent injunctions
Copyright Damages
29
 504(b) allows actual damages as a result of infringement and
infringer’s profits attributable to infringement (minus double
counting)
 Statutory damages unavailable if material is not registered prior to
infringement
– Not wilfull: $750 < damages <$30,000
– Wilfull: $750 < damages < $150,000
– No guidance on how to choose number within range
 Copyright holders can choose between actual damages and
statutory damages up until the court issues a final judgment.
Copyright Damages (cont.)
30
 Getty Images v. Virtual Clinics (W.D. Wash,
March 2014)
– Getty images owned copyrights to numerous pictures of cats and
dogs. 12 pictures at issue in case
– Defendants were a couple from Florida who designed websites
from their home for veterinarians and clinics
– Defendants initially moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and then stopped defending case
– Court entered default judgment, awarded $21,433 in actual
damages on 10 infringed images, and ordered statutory
damages on remaining 2 images
Copyright Damages (cont.)
31
“However, because there need not be “actual
evidence” of an infringer’s profits or a plaintiff’s
losses for maximum statutory damages to be
appropriate, the court turns to the remaining two
factors.”
– Public interest and willfulness supported maximum
award despite minimal damages to plaintiff and
negligible cost savings to defendant.
– Willfulness finding supported by evidence of 21 letters
written by defendant’s counsel denying infringement
Copyright Damages (cont.)
32
Copyright Damages (cont.)
33
 Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir.
2013)
– Dash created original work but it was not registered (no statutory
damages)
– Mayweather modified work and entered WWE event playing his
modified version
– District court granted S.J. because Dash could not establish
actual damages
– Dash submitted expert report outlining license fees paid to other
artists for use at WWE events
Copyright Damages (cont.)
34
 Fourth Circuit affirmed district court:
– Dash did not establish copyrighted work had market value
(expert report too speculative)
– Evidence of licenses paid to other artists too speculative
– Plaintiff seeking profit damage must prove amount of claimed
revenue streams; and some reasonable relationship between
revenue stream and infringement (“conceivable connection”)
Copyright Damages (cont.)
35
 Where from here?
– Congressional Hearings on Copyright remedies held on July 24,
2014
• Efficacy of statutory damages;
• Explore creation of “small claims” copyright tribunal to permit
copyright holders to seek remedies of smaWhere3ll dollar
infringements outside of federal court
 Make sure you advise clients to register
IV. Damages in Trade Secret Cases
36
 Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as adopted by the
states, governs trade secret damages (state law
issue)
– Equitable relief common (preliminary or permanent
injunctions)
– Damages:
• Actual damages (costs incurred and lost profits)
• Unjust enrichment
• Reasonable royalty estimate
Trade Secret Damages
37
 Storagecraft Technology Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d
1183, (10th Cir. 2014)
– Defendant Kirby stole the computer source code that he helped
create after a falling out with co-workers;
– Utah jury awarded $2.92M for misappropriation of trade secrets
based on a reasonable royalty theory;
– Award affirmed by Tenth Circuit in opinion that carefully
reviewed the UTSA and distinguished trade secret damages
from other IP infringement damages.
Trade Secret Damages (cont.)
38
 Kirby made three arguments to Tenth Circuit:
1. Reasonable royalty damages inappropriate without proof of
commercial use by defendant;
• Tenth Circuit rejected, relying on language from UTSA that allows
reasonable royalty damages when misappropriator uses or discloses
trade secret.
2. Amount of award was excessive because he did not benefit
from the “license”
• Citing Georgia-Pacific, the court acknowledged that the scope of the
negotiated license certainly impacts the license fee. However, Kirby
disclosed it to a known competitor, rather than his “long since retired,
seriously aged, and tight-lipped great-grandfather….”
3. Expert testimony was improperly allowed
Trade Secrets Damages (cont.)
39
 Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Halfand, Case no. 12-
11-00370-CV (Tex. Ct. App. 2013)
– Appellate court affirmed reasonable royalty damage award after defendant used
plaintiff’s trade secret in locating potential sources of natural gas reserves in
Texas
– Rejected disgorgement argument
– Approved royalty of 3%, which was similar to other licenses in industry
 Wayman Fire Protection Inc. v. Premium Fire & Security LLC,
Case no. 7866 (Del. Ch. 2014)
– Awarded damages to employer after employee stole “confidential information”
and shared with competitor
– Information was not found to be trade secret and there was no non-compete
agreement in place
– Court found defendant violated Delaware Misuse of Computer Systems
Information Act; applied same methodology as trade secret damages
Trade Secrets Damages (cont.)
40
VI. Questions & Answers
41

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsSession V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsWilmerHale
 
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and Licensing
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and LicensingODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and Licensing
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and LicensingAusGOAL
 
“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...
“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...
“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...Edge AI and Vision Alliance
 
Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021
Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021
Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021Patent Kinetics, LLC
 
Patents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be InfringedPatents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be Infringedblewisbell
 
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...WilmerHale
 
Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...
Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...
Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law
 
ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)
ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)
ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)Peter Michaelson
 
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law
 
Professionalism and Civility in Electronic Discovery
Professionalism and Civility in Electronic DiscoveryProfessionalism and Civility in Electronic Discovery
Professionalism and Civility in Electronic DiscoveryParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)
Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)
Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)Financial Poise
 
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]Lawrence Kass
 

Tendances (20)

Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsSession V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings
 
Trademark Review | June 2013
Trademark Review | June 2013Trademark Review | June 2013
Trademark Review | June 2013
 
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and Licensing
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and LicensingODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and Licensing
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and Licensing
 
Patent Eligible Subject Matter and High Tech Inventions
Patent Eligible Subject Matter and High Tech InventionsPatent Eligible Subject Matter and High Tech Inventions
Patent Eligible Subject Matter and High Tech Inventions
 
“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...
“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...
“Can You Patent Your AI-Based Invention?,” a Presentation from Fitch, Even, T...
 
Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021
Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021
Weber patent-best-practices-may-4-2021
 
Federal Circuit Review | June 2013
Federal Circuit Review | June 2013Federal Circuit Review | June 2013
Federal Circuit Review | June 2013
 
Patents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be InfringedPatents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be Infringed
 
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...
 
Federal Circuit Review | September 2013
Federal Circuit Review | September 2013Federal Circuit Review | September 2013
Federal Circuit Review | September 2013
 
Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...
Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...
Intellectual Property Law Roundtable - What Businesses Need to Know | Los Ang...
 
ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)
ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)
ABA_LAND_v007n06__patent_arbitration_it_still_makes_good_sense(re-print)
 
District Courts And PTAB Are Divided On IPR Estoppel
District Courts And PTAB Are Divided On IPR EstoppelDistrict Courts And PTAB Are Divided On IPR Estoppel
District Courts And PTAB Are Divided On IPR Estoppel
 
Recent Developments in Hatch-Waxman Law
Recent Developments in Hatch-Waxman LawRecent Developments in Hatch-Waxman Law
Recent Developments in Hatch-Waxman Law
 
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 - New Federal Protection for Trade Secre...
 
February-March2015Christensen
February-March2015ChristensenFebruary-March2015Christensen
February-March2015Christensen
 
Professionalism and Civility in Electronic Discovery
Professionalism and Civility in Electronic DiscoveryProfessionalism and Civility in Electronic Discovery
Professionalism and Civility in Electronic Discovery
 
Sachs SCBA Apr 28
Sachs SCBA Apr 28Sachs SCBA Apr 28
Sachs SCBA Apr 28
 
Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)
Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)
Discovery Practice (Series: Newbie Litigator School - Fall Edition)
 
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
 

En vedette (20)

agVol14No2-Sievers
agVol14No2-SieversagVol14No2-Sievers
agVol14No2-Sievers
 
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustion
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustionYar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustion
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustion
 
law of contract
law of contractlaw of contract
law of contract
 
Contract law
Contract lawContract law
Contract law
 
Introduction to Contract Law
Introduction to Contract LawIntroduction to Contract Law
Introduction to Contract Law
 
SoL Global Forum Program
SoL Global Forum ProgramSoL Global Forum Program
SoL Global Forum Program
 
Klíma 7 előnye
Klíma  7 előnyeKlíma  7 előnye
Klíma 7 előnye
 
Rac on NFS
Rac on NFSRac on NFS
Rac on NFS
 
04 2013 alumnesp3p4p5_sils
04 2013 alumnesp3p4p5_sils04 2013 alumnesp3p4p5_sils
04 2013 alumnesp3p4p5_sils
 
壹基金和阿里巴巴的那些事儿Final
壹基金和阿里巴巴的那些事儿Final壹基金和阿里巴巴的那些事儿Final
壹基金和阿里巴巴的那些事儿Final
 
What psychologists do
What psychologists doWhat psychologists do
What psychologists do
 
London Green
London GreenLondon Green
London Green
 
Matematica
MatematicaMatematica
Matematica
 
Workers' Compensation in Utah
Workers' Compensation in UtahWorkers' Compensation in Utah
Workers' Compensation in Utah
 
May2013
May2013May2013
May2013
 
Adobe captivate
Adobe captivateAdobe captivate
Adobe captivate
 
Roadmap ri fare v3.0
Roadmap ri fare v3.0Roadmap ri fare v3.0
Roadmap ri fare v3.0
 
Dress up!
Dress up!Dress up!
Dress up!
 
Linux ユーザーからみた tizen
Linux ユーザーからみた tizenLinux ユーザーからみた tizen
Linux ユーザーからみた tizen
 
Making better fundraising decisions
Making better fundraising decisionsMaking better fundraising decisions
Making better fundraising decisions
 

Similaire à Recent Developments in Proving Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes

Analysis Of Emvr Ravi Mohan
Analysis Of Emvr Ravi MohanAnalysis Of Emvr Ravi Mohan
Analysis Of Emvr Ravi Mohanravimohan2
 
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages Panel
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages PanelBerkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages Panel
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages PanelYar Chaikovsky
 
Conjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperConjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperJaeWon Lee
 
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?WileyReinLLP
 
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock TheoryPatent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock TheoryRobert DeWitty
 
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_VringoIAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_VringoDavid Cohen
 
FINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOP
FINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOPFINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOP
FINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOPWei Wei Jeang
 
2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentation2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentationthe nciia
 
2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design Patents
2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design Patents2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design Patents
2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design PatentsIsaac Rabicoff
 
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...Rahul Dev
 
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection response
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection responseUSPTO patent 13573002 final rejection response
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection responseSteven McGee
 
Dr Irene kafeza patents in wi fi standards
 Dr Irene kafeza  patents in wi fi standards Dr Irene kafeza  patents in wi fi standards
Dr Irene kafeza patents in wi fi standardsKafeza Law Offices
 
Judicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent Eligibility
Judicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent EligibilityJudicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent Eligibility
Judicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent Eligibilityblakereese
 
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law
 
Patent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS Encryption
Patent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS EncryptionPatent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS Encryption
Patent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS EncryptionThe Hacker News
 
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docxhoney725342
 
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?Karl Larson
 

Similaire à Recent Developments in Proving Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes (20)

Analysis Of Emvr Ravi Mohan
Analysis Of Emvr Ravi MohanAnalysis Of Emvr Ravi Mohan
Analysis Of Emvr Ravi Mohan
 
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages Panel
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages PanelBerkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages Panel
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology Patent Damages Panel
 
How to Prove Reasonable Royalty Damages after Uniloc
How to Prove Reasonable Royalty Damages after UnilocHow to Prove Reasonable Royalty Damages after Uniloc
How to Prove Reasonable Royalty Damages after Uniloc
 
Prosecution Luncheon November 2012
Prosecution Luncheon November 2012Prosecution Luncheon November 2012
Prosecution Luncheon November 2012
 
Conjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperConjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paper
 
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
 
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock TheoryPatent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
 
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_VringoIAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
 
FINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOP
FINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOPFINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOP
FINAL SBOT 2015 Advanced IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WORKSHOP
 
2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentation2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentation
 
2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design Patents
2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design Patents2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design Patents
2017-01 Samsung v Apple Design Patents
 
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...
US Patent Litigation CSIRO v. Cisco - Judge Davis's Damages Calculation of Re...
 
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection response
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection responseUSPTO patent 13573002 final rejection response
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection response
 
Dr Irene kafeza patents in wi fi standards
 Dr Irene kafeza  patents in wi fi standards Dr Irene kafeza  patents in wi fi standards
Dr Irene kafeza patents in wi fi standards
 
Judicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent Eligibility
Judicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent EligibilityJudicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent Eligibility
Judicially Re(De)Fining Software Patent Eligibility
 
Federal Circuit Review | July 2013
Federal Circuit Review | July 2013Federal Circuit Review | July 2013
Federal Circuit Review | July 2013
 
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
 
Patent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS Encryption
Patent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS EncryptionPatent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS Encryption
Patent Troll - Big Websites Sued For Using HTTPS Encryption
 
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx
1 (Slip Opinion) OCT.docx
 
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?
 

Plus de Parsons Behle & Latimer

Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable AccommodationNavigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable AccommodationParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable AccommodationNavigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable AccommodationParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324
Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324
Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324Parsons Behle & Latimer
 
Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...
Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...
Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...Parsons Behle & Latimer
 
Employee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employment
Employee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employmentEmployee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employment
Employee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employmentParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Employee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During Employment
Employee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During EmploymentEmployee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During Employment
Employee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During EmploymentParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations
Conducting Effective Workplace InvestigationsConducting Effective Workplace Investigations
Conducting Effective Workplace InvestigationsParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Confidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAA
Confidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAAConfidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAA
Confidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAAParsons Behle & Latimer
 
The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...
The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...
The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...Parsons Behle & Latimer
 
Inflation Reduction Act - Broad Observations
Inflation Reduction Act - Broad ObservationsInflation Reduction Act - Broad Observations
Inflation Reduction Act - Broad ObservationsParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?
Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?
Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?Parsons Behle & Latimer
 
Everything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to Ask
Everything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to AskEverything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to Ask
Everything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to AskParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?
Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?
Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?Parsons Behle & Latimer
 
Every Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and Lessons
Every Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and LessonsEvery Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and Lessons
Every Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and LessonsParsons Behle & Latimer
 
Breaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory Update
Breaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory UpdateBreaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory Update
Breaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory UpdateParsons Behle & Latimer
 

Plus de Parsons Behle & Latimer (20)

Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable AccommodationNavigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
 
Labor Issues for the Non-Union Employer
Labor Issues for the Non-Union EmployerLabor Issues for the Non-Union Employer
Labor Issues for the Non-Union Employer
 
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable AccommodationNavigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
Navigating the ADA: Case Studies on Reasonable Accommodation
 
Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324
Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324
Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and the New HB 324
 
Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...
Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...
Employee Life Cycle III: Termination Trepidation - Identifying and Avoiding t...
 
Employee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employment
Employee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employmentEmployee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employment
Employee Life Cycle I: HR Law Issues Pre-employment
 
Employee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During Employment
Employee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During EmploymentEmployee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During Employment
Employee Life Cycle II: HR Law Issues During Employment
 
Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations
Conducting Effective Workplace InvestigationsConducting Effective Workplace Investigations
Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations
 
Regulatory Hot Topics
Regulatory Hot TopicsRegulatory Hot Topics
Regulatory Hot Topics
 
Confidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAA
Confidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAAConfidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAA
Confidentiality Issues Arising Under the ADA, FMLA, HIPAA
 
The Corporate Transparency Act
The Corporate Transparency ActThe Corporate Transparency Act
The Corporate Transparency Act
 
The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...
The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...
The Major Questions Doctrine: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in West ...
 
Inflation Reduction Act - Broad Observations
Inflation Reduction Act - Broad ObservationsInflation Reduction Act - Broad Observations
Inflation Reduction Act - Broad Observations
 
Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?
Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?
Social Media: What's Not to Like About Social Media in the Workplace?
 
Everything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to Ask
Everything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to AskEverything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to Ask
Everything You Want to Ask Your Lawyer But Are Afraid to Ask
 
The ADA and Bosses Behaving Badly
The ADA and Bosses Behaving BadlyThe ADA and Bosses Behaving Badly
The ADA and Bosses Behaving Badly
 
Common Mistakes Employers Make
Common Mistakes Employers MakeCommon Mistakes Employers Make
Common Mistakes Employers Make
 
Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?
Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?
Privacy in the Workplace: How Much Snooping is Legal and Proper?
 
Every Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and Lessons
Every Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and LessonsEvery Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and Lessons
Every Case Really is a Story: Four State and Federal Caselaw Stories and Lessons
 
Breaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory Update
Breaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory UpdateBreaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory Update
Breaking HR Law News: Legislative and Regulatory Update
 

Dernier

The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateBTL Law P.C.
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.mike689707
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...SHRADDHA PANDIT
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditSHRADDHA PANDIT
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfNo One
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...Anadi Tewari
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Dr. Oliver Massmann
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsAurora Consulting
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsSyedaAyeshaTabassum1
 

Dernier (10)

The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
 
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False ConfessionsCriminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
 

Recent Developments in Proving Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes

  • 1. November 13, 2014 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Salt Lake City, Utah Utah State Bar Intellectual Property Section
  • 2. Presenters 2  Cory D. Sinclair J.D., Ph.D. Economics Parsons Behle & Latimer  John N. Zarian J.D., M.S. Finance Parsons Behle & Latimer
  • 3. Overview 3 ● Trends in patent damages in the post-Uniloc environment ● New approaches in calculating patent damages ● Recent developments in damages awards in trademark cases ● Recent decisions related to proving copyright damages ● Using alternative theories of damages in trade secrets cases
  • 4. “Call the patent office. Copyright the name ‘Green Goblin.’ I want a quarter every time somebody says it.” 4
  • 5. I. Damages in Patent Cases 5
  • 6. Patent Damages  28 U.S.C. 284 Upon finding for the claimant [patent holder] the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. … [T]he court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.  Damages – Lost Profits (causation requirement) – Reasonable Royalty (floor) – Interest and costs – Attorney fees (exceptional cases) 6
  • 7.  Lost Profits – Lost Sales – Price Erosion – Unpatented Items – Future Lost Profits – Damage to Reputation and Goodwill – Miscellaneous Business Losses  Reasonable Royalty – Georgia-Pacific Hypothetical Negotiation – Analytical Approach (apportion projected profits) – 25% Rule of Thumb (rejected) – Established Royalty for the Patent? – Many Licenses in a Small Range of Rates? – Cost Savings / Incremental Benefits? Patent Damages: Methodologies 7
  • 8. Some Key Concepts Relating to Reasonable Royalty Damages 8 Entire Market Value Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit (“SSU”) Further apportionment?
  • 9.  Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (The entire market value rule (“EMVR”) allows a patentee to claim damages based on the entire market value of an accused product containing patented and non-patented components only where the patented feature creates the “basis for customer demand.”).  Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The Supreme Court and this Court’s precedents do not allow consideration of the entire market value of accused products for minor patent improvements simply by asserting a low enough royalty rate.”).  LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67-68 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The entire market value rule is a narrow exception to this general rule [that royalties be based on the smallest salable patent- practicing unit].”) (“It is not enough to merely show that the [patented feature] is viewed as valuable, important or even essential … . [Rather, plaintiff must show] “the presence of that [patented feature] is what motivates consumers to buy a [product] in the first place.”). Issue #1: Current State of the Entire Market Value Rule (“EMVR”) 9
  • 10.  Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 6:08-CV-88 (Dkt. 478) (EDTX 4/4/11) (JMOL vacating $625M jury award) – Jury could not have reasonably relied on certain “consumer surveys” to find that customer demand for patented features created basis for customer demand for the revenues used in the royalty base  NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. LA CV10- 03257 JAK (CDCA 10/23/13) (granting in part and denying in part motion to exclude surveys relied upon by plaintiff’s damages experts) – Rejecting argument that surveys did not attempt to determine if consumers cared whether data formatted for computer email was sent to and from a local area network at a lower transmit power level, as required by the asserted claims – Accepting some questions that appeared to be intended to avoid bias in the answers, while rejecting a question seeking to value something that was significantly broader than the claimed invention without adequate justification – Rejecting a second survey that “was not constructed in a reliable manner” Issue #2: Using Consumer Surveys 10
  • 11.  Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard, 609 F.Supp.2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009) (J. Rader, by designation) (slashing $184M jury award to $53M) – Plaintiff’s expert could not show the patented component was the basis for demand for servers, workstations, etc. – Patent was directed to Instruction Reorder Buffer (IRB) – IRB was only one feature of the CPU – But CPU was the smallest salable patent-practicing unit (“SSU”) – Therefore, damages allowed on CPU as a royalty base  Q: Can plaintiff stop at the SSU if the patent is directed to an SSU feature, or is the SSU just a starting point? Issue #3: Smallest Salable Patent- Practicing Unit (“SSU”) & Apportionment 11
  • 12.  LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67-68 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]n any case involving multi-component products, patentees may not calculate damages based on sales of the entire product, as opposed to the smallest salable patent-practicing unit ….”) (suggesting that apportionment is not required)  Internet Machines LLC v. Alienware Corp., Case No. 6:10-CV-23 (EDTX 6/19/13) (Dkt. 615) (“Because Mr. Bratic used the smallest unit as his royalty base, additional apportionment is unwarranted and the narrow exception of the entire market value rule is inapplicable.”) (holding that apportionment is not required)  AVM Tech., LLC v. Intel. Corp., Case No. 10-610-RGA (DDE 1/4/13) (Dkt. 230) (“The use of a saleable unit that is greater than the patented feature is going to introduce Uniloc error … .”) (holding that apportionment is required).  Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsis, Inc., Case No. C 11-05973, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120403, at *7-12 (NDCA 8/22/13) (“Dr. Black relied on the blanket assumption that, once he selected the smallest saleable unit – in this case the entire VCS product – he could end the analysis, his determination of the royalty base is fundamentally flawed.”) (holding that apportionment is required). SSU & Apportionment – cont’d 12
  • 13.  “The basis for” customer demand or “a substantial basis” of consumer demand? – LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 63 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“basis for customer demand”); Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (same); Rite- Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (same). – Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(EMVR applies “where the patented feature creates the ‘basis for customer demand’ or ‘substantially create[s] the value of the component parts’”); Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d at 1337 (suggesting EMVR applies if there is evidence the patent method is “the basis” or “a substantial basis” of consumer demand). Issue #4: Efforts to Avoid EMVR, SSU & Apportionment 13
  • 14.  Artful claim selection and application – System-level claims or broad apparatus claims may cover an entire multi-featured product, e.g., a “computer” – Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian, Case No. 2:08-CV-01307-AJS (W.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2012) • Inventive feature was certain RPM software, but two of the dependent claims included a linear accelerator (in prior art) • Varian argued that including the linear accelerator in royalty base was like including the price of a TV in the royalty base for a patented DVR that mentions a TV in the claims. The Court stated that the better analogy would be for a TV that had a built in DVR, where the TV was a critical component of the whole patented apparatus. • “[B]ecause the Court has concluded the linear accelerators are a part of the patented apparatus and not just a mere accessory, the added value of the linear accelerators may be used in determining the royalty base.” Efforts to Avoid EMVR, SSU & Apportionment – cont’d 14
  • 15. Licenses Used to Prove Damages Must be “Comparable”  Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“comparisons of past patent licenses to the infringement must account for ‘the technological and economic differences’ between them”); ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 868-69 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversing as to damages) (past license evidence used to calculate royalty rates must be reasonably related to claimed invention); Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“licenses relied on by the patentee in proving damages [must be] sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical license at issue in suit.”). Issue #5: “Comparable” Licenses 15
  • 16. Q: If comparable licenses are based on total revenue of devices similar to accused device, must patentee prove “the basis for customer demand”?  Mondis Tech. Ltd. V. LG Elecs., Inc., 2011 WL 2417367 (EDTX 6/14/11) (if licenses are truly comparable, royalties may be permitted based on total product revenue in license agreements without also proving “the basis for customer demand).  But see Lighting Ballast Control v. Philips Elecs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96148 (NDTX 6/10/11) (improper to use entire revenue without proving “the basis for customer demand”). “Comparable” Licenses – cont’d 16
  • 17.  Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) – “[A]s a matter of Federal Circuit law, [ ] the 25 percent rule of thumb is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypo- thetical negotiation. Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to the facts of the case at issue.”  WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) – Four patents directed to automated delivery of professional services and backing up client data; accused products were programs to generate and send reminders to clients of upcoming patent/trademark deadlines – On appeal, vacated $8M award and remanded for new trial on damages – Experts must fully analyze Georgia-Pacific factors, not cursorily recite them – Considering, without deciding, whether a lump sum award was a fully paid- up license that would have obviated any ongoing royalties – Illustrates care that must be taken in presenting a damages case Issue #6: 25% “Rule of Thumb” & Other Unsupported Royalty Awards 17
  • 19.  Protegrity Corporation v. Voltage Security, Inc., Case No. 3:10-CV-755 RNC (DCT 12/21/13) (data encryption) – Damages for lost profits determined using the Panduit factors – One factor is “absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes” – MSJ granted because expert failed to address whether there were non-infringing alternatives available in the market  TQP Development, LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Case No. 2:08-CV-471-WCB (EDTX 8/10/12) (Dkt. 598) – Non-infringing alternatives offered on the issue of reasonable royalty damages; this was not a lost profits case – Alternative ciphers available at time of hypothetical negotiation – Defendants’ expert could be allowed to testify that non-infringing alternatives would impact any hypothetical negotiation Issue #7: Non-Infringing Alternatives and Reasonable Royalty Damages 19
  • 20.  Simply put, the Nash bargaining solution – named after Dr. John Nash (“A Beautiful Mind”) – is the most mutually beneficial result for both parties.  Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 798 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (rejecting Nash bargaining solution as “impenetrable” and because it essentially amounts to an assumption of 50% of the infringer’s profits).  Mformation Techs., Inc. v. RIM, 2012 WL 1142537 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012) (allowing Nash bargaining solution as a “check” on royalty rate).  Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., Case No. 09-CV-2319 BEN NLS (SDCA 11/26/12) (Dkt. 572) (allowing Nash bargaining solution in “combination” with real world observations and tied to the facts of the case).  VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 6:10-CV-00417-LED (Dkt. 745) (EDTX 3/1/13) (allowing Nash bargaining solution profit splitting model).  Suffolk Tech. LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc., Case No. 1:12-CV-625 (EDVA 4/12/13) (Dkt. 518) (rejecting use of Nash bargaining solution because it was not tied to the facts of the case). Issue #8: Nash Bargaining Solution 20
  • 21.  Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Case No. 2:09-CV-00290-NBF (MDPA 11/2912) (Dkt. 672) (semiconductor chips made abroad) – Allowing but not endorsing “novel” theory of damages touching on foreign sales based on usage in the United States – Marvell used the patented method during its U.S. “sales cycle” and argued “but for” that cycle, would not have made sales  Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 2012 WL 5267014 (DNV 10/25/12) (chips made and sold abroad) – Court allowed plaintiff to seek royalties on chips made abroad, based on evidence of direct sales into the U.S. and estimates that other chips were making their way into the U.S. Issue #9: Foreign Sales 21
  • 22. II. Damages in Trademark Cases 22
  • 23.  McCarthy on Trademarks notes that the public policy and theoretical basis underlying monetary awards have received inadequate judicial attention and have remained confused and undefined.  Monetary remedies available under the Lanham Act include – Defendant’s profits – Plaintiff’s damages – Reasonable royalty – Costs of lawsuit – Attorneys’ fees (“exceptional cases”)  Between 1947 and 2005, only 5.5% of cases decided obtained monetary damages Trademark Damages 23
  • 24.  Equitable relief: – Defendant’s profits (flows from infringer’s unjust enrichment and need for deterrence) • Tenth Circuit requires showing of willfulness or bad faith for Defendant’s profits • However, many circuits do not require a showing of actual confusion to be awarded defendant’s profits • Plaintiff’s burden is to establish infringer’s sales. Burden then shifts to infringer to establish deductions. – Typical deductions include variable costs (labor, raw materials, COGS) – Fixed costs, taxes, excessive expenses are not deductible Trademark Damages (cont.) 24
  • 25.  Legal relief: – Plaintiff’s lost profits • Tenth Circuit allows circumstantial evidence of actual confusion (such as survey results) to support an award of actual damages • Recognized methodology includes revenue lost less expenses that would have been incurred to earn those revenues – Reasonable royalty • Unclear in Tenth Circuit whether Reasonable royalty award is allowed when there is no evidence of plaintiff’s willingness to license. • Ninth Circuit has previously held no reasonable royalty unless evidence of past licenses • Seventh Circuit has held reasonable royalty may be appropriate even if no evidence of past licenses • Generally follows Georgia-Pacific factors in determining appropriate rate Trademark Damages (cont.) 25
  • 26.  Legal relief cont. – Attorney fees for prevailing parties in exceptional cases • Exceptional cases often those defined as purposeful infringement or truly egregious violations. – Recovery of costs • Discretionary with the court, but typically include filing fees, witness fees, and court reporter fees – Statutory damages for counterfeiting cases • Similar to copyright, range of options and increase with a finding of willfulness. • Actual damages not required to receive statutory damages Trademark Damages (cont.) 26
  • 27.  Is Reasonable royalty the future? – QS Wholesale, Inc. v. World Marketing, Inc., 2013 WL 1953719 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2013) • Reasonable royalty award permitted even though plaintiff had not previously licensed mark; • Relied on expert testimony of similarity between mark and other similar clothing licensing deals – ITT Corp. v. Xylem Group, LLC, 2013 WL 4011057 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2013) • Plaintiff permitted to present evidence of reasonable royalty damage calculation even though no license had ever been granted • Court relied heavily on policy considerations Trademark Damages (cont.) 27
  • 28. III. Damages in Copyright Cases 28
  • 29. Basics: – Under Section 504 of the Copyright Act, an infringer is liable for either (i) owner’s actual damages, or (ii) statutory damages – Most common form of relief in copyright cases is equitable, including preliminary and permanent injunctions Copyright Damages 29
  • 30.  504(b) allows actual damages as a result of infringement and infringer’s profits attributable to infringement (minus double counting)  Statutory damages unavailable if material is not registered prior to infringement – Not wilfull: $750 < damages <$30,000 – Wilfull: $750 < damages < $150,000 – No guidance on how to choose number within range  Copyright holders can choose between actual damages and statutory damages up until the court issues a final judgment. Copyright Damages (cont.) 30
  • 31.  Getty Images v. Virtual Clinics (W.D. Wash, March 2014) – Getty images owned copyrights to numerous pictures of cats and dogs. 12 pictures at issue in case – Defendants were a couple from Florida who designed websites from their home for veterinarians and clinics – Defendants initially moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and then stopped defending case – Court entered default judgment, awarded $21,433 in actual damages on 10 infringed images, and ordered statutory damages on remaining 2 images Copyright Damages (cont.) 31
  • 32. “However, because there need not be “actual evidence” of an infringer’s profits or a plaintiff’s losses for maximum statutory damages to be appropriate, the court turns to the remaining two factors.” – Public interest and willfulness supported maximum award despite minimal damages to plaintiff and negligible cost savings to defendant. – Willfulness finding supported by evidence of 21 letters written by defendant’s counsel denying infringement Copyright Damages (cont.) 32
  • 33. Copyright Damages (cont.) 33  Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2013) – Dash created original work but it was not registered (no statutory damages) – Mayweather modified work and entered WWE event playing his modified version – District court granted S.J. because Dash could not establish actual damages – Dash submitted expert report outlining license fees paid to other artists for use at WWE events
  • 34. Copyright Damages (cont.) 34  Fourth Circuit affirmed district court: – Dash did not establish copyrighted work had market value (expert report too speculative) – Evidence of licenses paid to other artists too speculative – Plaintiff seeking profit damage must prove amount of claimed revenue streams; and some reasonable relationship between revenue stream and infringement (“conceivable connection”)
  • 35. Copyright Damages (cont.) 35  Where from here? – Congressional Hearings on Copyright remedies held on July 24, 2014 • Efficacy of statutory damages; • Explore creation of “small claims” copyright tribunal to permit copyright holders to seek remedies of smaWhere3ll dollar infringements outside of federal court  Make sure you advise clients to register
  • 36. IV. Damages in Trade Secret Cases 36
  • 37.  Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as adopted by the states, governs trade secret damages (state law issue) – Equitable relief common (preliminary or permanent injunctions) – Damages: • Actual damages (costs incurred and lost profits) • Unjust enrichment • Reasonable royalty estimate Trade Secret Damages 37
  • 38.  Storagecraft Technology Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183, (10th Cir. 2014) – Defendant Kirby stole the computer source code that he helped create after a falling out with co-workers; – Utah jury awarded $2.92M for misappropriation of trade secrets based on a reasonable royalty theory; – Award affirmed by Tenth Circuit in opinion that carefully reviewed the UTSA and distinguished trade secret damages from other IP infringement damages. Trade Secret Damages (cont.) 38
  • 39.  Kirby made three arguments to Tenth Circuit: 1. Reasonable royalty damages inappropriate without proof of commercial use by defendant; • Tenth Circuit rejected, relying on language from UTSA that allows reasonable royalty damages when misappropriator uses or discloses trade secret. 2. Amount of award was excessive because he did not benefit from the “license” • Citing Georgia-Pacific, the court acknowledged that the scope of the negotiated license certainly impacts the license fee. However, Kirby disclosed it to a known competitor, rather than his “long since retired, seriously aged, and tight-lipped great-grandfather….” 3. Expert testimony was improperly allowed Trade Secrets Damages (cont.) 39
  • 40.  Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Halfand, Case no. 12- 11-00370-CV (Tex. Ct. App. 2013) – Appellate court affirmed reasonable royalty damage award after defendant used plaintiff’s trade secret in locating potential sources of natural gas reserves in Texas – Rejected disgorgement argument – Approved royalty of 3%, which was similar to other licenses in industry  Wayman Fire Protection Inc. v. Premium Fire & Security LLC, Case no. 7866 (Del. Ch. 2014) – Awarded damages to employer after employee stole “confidential information” and shared with competitor – Information was not found to be trade secret and there was no non-compete agreement in place – Court found defendant violated Delaware Misuse of Computer Systems Information Act; applied same methodology as trade secret damages Trade Secrets Damages (cont.) 40
  • 41. VI. Questions & Answers 41