Recent Developments in Patent Infringement Damage Awards

Summary:

2009 ushered in several interesting cases which indicate a significant shift in the thinking of the courts regarding patent infringement damages, and specifically, the entire market value rule. Damages awards have been reduced, reversed, or questioned on appeal. Going forward, the recent rulings may affect the desirability of evidence related to whether/how much the allegedly infringed patented feature drives demand and/or to its frequency of use by customers. The new atmosphere in IP litigation may also affect the valuation of patents for M&A and licensing purposes. Attorneys need to be in the know with respect to this hot topic in order to properly advise their clients.

The Knowledge Group is assembling a panel of key thought leaders and industry experts in a 2-hour live webcast to provide their insights on what you need to know about these developments in patent litigation. The audience will have the chance to ask questions and interact with the speakers, live. Click the register button below to gain access to this timely and informative webcast. Discounts are available to early registrants.

Course Level: Intermediate
Prerequisite: None
Method Of Presentation: Group-Based-Internet
Developer: The Knowledge Group, LLC
Recommended CLE/CPE Hours: 2.0
Important Note: Your State Bar or Accounting Board will make the final determination with respect to continuing education credit. If you are applying for CLE credit in Texas you must register 20 days before the event date or you will not be able to obtain CLE credit.
Advance Preparation: Print and review course materials
Course Code: 103983

SEGMENT 1:

Sarah Chapin Columbia, Partner, Head Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group,  McDermott Will & Emery LLP

** Speaker Agenda to be added soon.. **

SEGMENT 2:

Cynthia Lopez Beverage , Of Counsel,  Morrison & Foerster LLP

-The "compromise" patent reform bill introduced on 2/25/2010 by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) mirrors   the CAFC's Cornell, Lucent and Lansa decisions which place the obligation upon a trial court judge   to act as the "gatekeeper" who must closely scrutinize the evidentiary and economic bases of a   reasonable royalty in the setting of the appropriate royalty base, the application of the EMVR, and the   calculation of the appropriate royalty rate.
-In determining the sufficiency of the evidence upon which an expert witness's reasonable royalty   theory relies, the trial court judge must now approach and apply the Georgia-Pacific factors more   carefully with the goal of requiring "real world" uniformity and connection between the patent or   patented invention and both market forces and market comparables.
-If the accused product is a separable multi-component product and the patent covers only one   component therein, it is more likely that the proper royalty base for a patented invention will be the   smallest saleable patent practice unit that contains the claimed invention rather than the entire   market value of the multi-component product.

SEGMENT 3:

Mark P. Wine , Partner,  Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

1. Do the i4i, Cornell and Lucent cases indicate a change in how patent litigators should select and
    present expert damages testimony at trial?
2. Do these cases impact how we should work with experts before trial?
3. How do this cases and other recent trial court decisions impact the relative emphasis on
    reasonable royalty damages vs. lost profits damages at trial?
4. Do these cases tell us anything about the strategic use of pre-trial (e.g. Daubert) or trial (JMOL)
    motions?
5. In light of all the damages cases that have come down over the past 2 years, is the 25% rule still
    worth referring to?

SEGMENT 4:

Dr. Elizabeth Bailey , Vice President,  NERA Economic Consulting

1. Several common themes related to patent infringement damages emerge from three recent CAFC decisions which have general applicability to matters involving patent     damages.
2. The economic approach to calculating reasonable royalty damages does not depend on whether the patented technology is a large or small component of the overall     product.
3. It is not economically sensible to determine the royalty base and royalty rate independently of one another because a mismatched rate and base can lead to an     unreasonable dollar amount of     royalties.
4. Non-economic approaches to calculating reasonable royalties, such as the use of non-comparable benchmarks and the so-called 25% rule, are unreliable because they are not based on factual     support for the patent’s use in the specific cases at hand.

---

Who Should Attend?

- Patent Litigators
- In-House Counsel for Firms that own or License Patents
- Patent Licensing Attorneys

Why Attend?

This is a must attend event to fully understand the important issues surrounding Recent Developments in Patent Infringement Damage Awards.
    - Detailed guidance explained by the most qualified key leaders & experts
    - Hear directly from key regulators & thought leaders
    - Interact directly with panel during Q&A

Recent Developments in Patent Infringement Damage Awards
LIVE Webcast

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

12:00pm to 2:00pm (ET)