throbber
S9982
`
`guts of their doctors and nurses. I can
`still see them in my mind, struggling
`to keep those hospitals open with the
`city completely underwater and a par-
`ish underwater. This is for Orleans and
`Jefferson. They still have not been re-
`imbursed for the work that they did
`during Katrina.
`For some reason, we can’t get this
`Congress to understand the importance
`of what those hospitals did during this
`great time of need. So I wish to send
`this in for the RECORD.
`{L
`
`CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
`I don’t
`think the Federal Govem—
`ment should pick up 100 percent of the
`expense of mandatory evacuations, but
`I do think. for some period in some par-
`ishes, particularly those that have
`been very hard hit, that the Govern-
`ment, the Federal Government, if they
`can do it for some of the counties in
`Texas, most certainly should consider
`the parishes in Louisiana. So I am
`going to submit that as my last plea
`for the RECORD.
`I know it has been a long day, but I
`feel as if we got some things accom-
`plished. I don’t know what the schedule
`will be as the leaders decide on how we
`bring this particular Congress to a
`close, but I have to say the work of the
`recovery is still going on. It will go on
`for many years. My heart goes out to
`my neighbors from Texas who are just
`now discovering with awe and shock,
`shock and awe, what a hurricane can
`mean. They haven’t had one in 50
`years, such as the one in Galveston,
`and they had one last week. So I know
`what they are experiencing because we
`have been through that. I will stand
`ready to work with them in my com-
`mittee, as chair of the Subcommittee
`on Disaster, when we return. Whether
`it is floods in the Midwest or hurri-
`canes in the gulf, we will continue to,
`first, try to protect ourselves by better
`levees and flood control; and then have
`a better system of aid and help that is
`reliable and dependable for these peo-
`ple—for our people, our constituents,
`and our citizens in need.
`{mi
`
`September 27, 2008
`dium—to—long term. Reputable econo-
`mists estimate that historically, be-
`tween 35 and 40 percent of U.S. produc-
`tivity growth has been the result of in-
`novation.
`My bill makes substantial changes to
`those sections of S. 1145 that address
`damages, post grant review, venue and
`interlocutory appeals. applicant qual-
`ity submissions, and inequitable con-
`duct. This bill will not be considered in
`this Congress. I nevertheless thought
`that it would be useful to propose al-
`ternative approaches to these issues
`now, to allow Senators and interested
`parties the time to consider these al-
`ternatives as we prepare for the patent
`reform debate in the next Congress. I
`hope that my colleagues will work with
`me in a bipartisan and deliberative
`manner to construct a bill that will be
`considered in the next Congress. With
`those thoughts in mind, allow me to
`describe the significant changes that
`this bill makes to S. 1145.
`I believe that S. 1145 goes too far in
`restricting a patent owner’s right to
`recover reasonable royalty damages.
`On the other hand, I also believe that
`there is room for improvement in cur-
`rent law. Some unsound practices have
`crept into U.S. patent damages litiga-
`tion. My staff and I spent several
`months at the end of last year and the
`beginning of this year discussing the
`current state of patent damages litiga-
`tion with a number of seasoned practi-
`tioners and even some professional
`damages experts. I sought out people
`with deep experience in the field who
`had not been retained to lobby on pend-
`ing legislation.
`A substantial number of the experts
`with whom I spoke said that there is
`nothing wrong with current damages
`litigation and that Congress should not
`change the law. Others, however, iden-
`tified a number of unsound practices
`that they believe have led to inflated
`damages awards in a significant num-
`ber of cases. Different attorneys and
`experts repeatedly identified the same
`valuation methods and criteria as
`being unsound, subject
`to mampula—
`tion, and leading to damages awards
`that are far out of proportion to an m-
`vention’s economic contribution to the
`infringing product. Examples of prob-
`lematic methodologies that were iden-
`tified to me include the so—called rule
`of thumb, under which an infringed
`patent is presumptively entitled to 40
`percent or some other standard portion
`of all of the profits on a. product, the
`use of the average license paid for pat-
`ents in an industry as a starting point
`for calculating the value of a par-
`ticular patent, and a. formula attrib-
`uted to IBM whereby every high-tech-
`nology patent is entitled to 1 percent
`of the revenues on a product. A number
`of experts also criticized the use of
`comparables, whereby the value of a
`patent is calculated by reference to the
`license paid for a supposedly com-
`parable patent.
`The views of those experts who were
`critical of current damages law find
`
`DISASTER DECLARATION
`
`fl-
`Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President,
`nally, I wish to urge this administra-
`tion to provide a 100-percent disaster
`declaration for at least these parishes.
`Our Governor has asked for 100 percent
`for all the parishes—and I am going to
`put up that chart in a. minute—but the
`Governor believes the entire State de-
`serves to have a 100-percent reimburse-
`ment because Gustav went through our
`whole State, and then Ike came up a
`few weeks later and flooded and did a.
`tremendous amount of wind damage.
`We are not designated as a 100-per-
`cent cost share yet, which means the
`Federal Government would step in and
`pick up 100 percent of some of these
`parishes that are on their last
`leg.
`They have been through four storms in
`the last couple years. Unfortunately,
`and I am not sure why, but several
`counties in Texas have been granted
`the first 0 to 14 days at 100 percent. Yet
`our parishes, which were hit equally as
`hard, have not yet received that des-
`ignation.
`So I am asking, on their behalf and
`with the full support of our Governor,
`our Lieutenant Governor, and others
`who are leading our effort in the recov-
`ery, if the administra.tion would please
`consider at least giving equal
`treat-
`ment—100 percent, 0 to 14—for the par-
`ishes that were as hard hit as the Texas
`counties were in this aerial.
`But do not forget, as I close, that
`when Hurricane Gustav was in the gulf,
`our Governor called for a mandatory
`evacuation, and 2 million people, the
`largest evacuation in the country’s his-
`tory, left their homes to move tempo-
`rarily,
`for a couple days, and then
`came back. The damage was very bad.
`It wasn’t catastrophic such as Katrina,
`but it was as bad as Hurricane Rita.
`But when they came home, the Federal
`Government said: Well, thank you for
`evacuating, but there is virtually no
`help for you or your counties.
`It is expensive to evacuate. I know
`people don’t understand,
`those who
`have never had to go through it, but it
`costs hundreds of dollars to fill your
`tank with gas, if you have a car: it
`costs hundreds of dollars to stay at a
`hotel, even if it is just for a day or two;
`it costs hundreds of dollars to drive
`down the road to pick up your elderly
`aunt or your grandmother, who lives in
`another parish, to get her to evacuate.
`I can't tell you the expense that people
`incur.
`
`PATENT REFORM
`
`Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today
`to comment on S. 3600, the Patent Re-
`form Act of 2008. This bill is based on,
`but makes a number of changes to, S.
`1145, a patent reform bill that was re-
`ported out of the Judiciary Committee
`in 2007 but that was never considered
`by the full Senate.
`S. 1145 proposed several salutary and
`uncontroversial reforms to the patent
`system, but also included provisions
`that would rewrite the formula for
`awarding damages in patent cases and
`that would create new administrative
`proceedings for challenging patents.
`These and other provisions of that bill
`would have made it much more expen-
`sive to hold and defend a patent, would
`have extended the time for recovering
`damages for infringement, and would
`have substantially reduced the amount
`that
`the patent holder would ulti-
`mately recover for infringement. The
`changes proposed by S. 1145 went so far
`that under that bill’s regime, it may
`have proved cheaper in many cases to
`infringe a patent and suffer the attenu-
`ated and reduced consequences of doing
`so, rather than to pay a license to the
`holder of the patent. Once such a line
`is crossed, the incentive to invest in re-
`search and development and the com-
`mercialization of new technology in
`this country would be greatly reduced.
`Such a change would do enormous
`harm to the U.S. economy in the me-
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`' VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2009
`
`Apple V. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2016-00063
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2016-00063
`
`

`
`S9983
`September 27, 2008
`CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
`gation the same damages calculation
`cessive damages awards. If overly
`some support in the macro evidence.
`methods that they routinely employ in
`Data
`collected
`by
`broad claim constructions were a
`arm’s length licensing negotiations.
`PricewaterhouseCoopers and FTI Con-
`major source of problems with damages
`The bill that I have introduced today
`sulting indicate that the majority of
`litigation, I undoubtedly would have
`uses what I call an enhanced gate-
`the largest patent-damages awards and
`come across at least one neutral expert
`keeper to address problems with dam-
`settlements of all time have been en-
`who expressed that view.
`ages awards. The bill strengthens judi-
`Discussions that I have had with sev-
`tered only since 2002. Also, the infla-
`cial review of expert witness testi-
`eral proponents of S. 1145 indicated
`tion adjusted value of awards entered
`mony, provides greater guidance to ju-
`that they understand the principal evil
`since 2000 is more than 50 percent high-
`ries, and allows for sequencing of the
`of current damages litigation to be the
`er than it was during the early 1990s.
`damages
`and
`validity/infringement
`award of damages as a percentage or
`And it also appears that jury awards
`phases of a trial. The bill also codifies
`portion of the full price of the infring-
`tend to be about ten times higher than
`the principle that all relevant factors
`ing product. It also appears that some
`the average damages award entered by
`can be considered when assessing rea-
`proponents of S. 1145 believe that a
`a judge, and that results vary mark-
`sonable royalty damages, while adopt-
`statutory instruction to define the in-
`edly by jurisdiction. These facts sug-
`ing guidelines and rules that favor the
`vention more narrowly and clearly
`gest that the problems that sometimes
`use of an economic analysis of the
`would prevent parties from seeking
`lead to inflated damages awards are to
`value of an invention over rough or
`damages based on the entire value of
`some extent systemic.
`The task of reforming substantive
`subjective methodologies such as the
`the infringing product. The linkage be-
`damages standards presents a very dif-
`rule of thumb, industry averages, or
`tween claim construction and the dam-
`ficult legislative question. Damages
`the use of comparables. Allow me to
`ages base is not clear to me. Even a
`calculation is an inherently fact-inten-
`provide
`a
`subsection-by-subsection
`concededly limited invention could be
`sive inquiry and requires legal flexi-
`summary of the bill’s revisions to sec-
`fairly valued by using the full prod-
`bility so that the best evidence of a
`tion 284, the basic patent damages stat-
`uct’s price as the damages base, so long
`patent’s value may always be consid-
`ute.
`as the rate applied to that base was ap-
`Subsection (a) of the bill’s proposed
`ered. Any proposed changes to the law
`propriately small.
`section 284 copies and recodifies all of
`excessive
`Many unjustified and
`must be evaluated in light of the kalei-
`current section 284, including its au-
`awards certainly do use the full value
`doscope of factual scenarios presented
`thorization of treble damages and its
`of the infringing product as the dam-
`by the calculation of damages for dif-
`admonition that compensatory dam-
`ages base. Indeed, awards that are de-
`ferent types of patents.
`I have largely given up on the idea of
`ages shall ‘‘in no event be less than a
`rived from the rule of thumb almost al-
`developing a unified field theory of
`reasonable royalty for the use made of
`ways are based on the entire value of
`damages law that solves all problems
`the invention.’’
`the infringing product, as is the typical
`Subsection (b) codifies current Fed-
`at once. I also oppose proposals to re-
`industry averages award. Precluding or
`eral circuit precedent defining a rea-
`quire a prior-art subtraction in every
`sharply limiting the use of net sales
`sonable royalty as the amount that the
`case. Most measures of a reasonable
`price as a damages base certainly
`infringer and patent owner would have
`royalty, such as established royalties,
`would block the path to many of the
`agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation
`costs of design-arounds, comparisons to
`bad outcomes that are produced by the
`at the time infringement began. It
`noninfringing alternatives, or cost sav-
`use of these methodologies.
`tracks the language of the Rite-Hite
`The problem with a rule that bars
`ings produced by use of the patented
`case, 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and
`the use of net sales price as the dam-
`invention, already effectively deduct
`follow-on decisions. Some supporters of
`ages base when calculating a reason-
`the value of prior art out of their esti-
`S. 1145 are critical of the hypothetical
`able royalty is that in many industrial
`mate of the patented invention’s value.
`negotiation construct and believe that
`sectors, net sales price is routinely
`To mandate prior-art subtraction when
`it leads to bad results. Not only is this
`used as the damages base in voluntary
`using such measures would be to dou-
`test established law, however, but it is
`licensing negotiations. It is favored as
`ble count that deduction, effectively
`also inherent in the concept of a ‘‘rea-
`a damages base because it is an objec-
`subtracting the prior art twice and
`sonable royalty.’’ That standard re-
`tive and readily verifiable datum. The
`undervaluing the invention.
`And for reasons mostly explained in
`quires the trier of fact to determine
`parties to a licensing negotiation do
`my minority views to the committee
`what would have been—i.e., what the
`not even argue about its use. Instead,
`report for S. 1145, S. Rep. 110–259 at
`parties would have agreed to. As long
`they fight over the rate that will be ap-
`pages 64–65, I also disagree with the ar-
`as the patent code requires a ‘‘reason-
`plied to that base. Even if the net sales
`gument that defendants should be al-
`able royalty,’’ courts and juries will
`price of the product is very large and
`lowed to revisit validity questions,
`need to engage in a hypothetical in-
`the economic contribution made by the
`such as a patent’s novelty or non-
`quiry as to how the invention reason-
`patented invention is small, net sales
`obviousness, during the damages phase
`ably would have been valued at the
`price can still serve as the denominator
`of litigation. To those comments I
`time of infringement. Indeed, it is not
`of an appropriate royalty if the numer-
`would simply add that, if Congress
`apparent by what other means the
`ator is made small.
`Thus in these industries, the initials,
`were to desire that patents be defined
`factfinder might approach the calcula-
`NSP, appear frequently and repeatedly
`more specifically and narrowly, then it
`tion of a reasonable royalty. And in
`in licensing contracts. A legal rule that
`would need to provide express guidance
`any event, the source of occasional bad
`precluded use of net sales price as the
`as to how to do so. Simply using adjec-
`results in damages trials is not the
`damages base would effectively prevent
`tival phrases such as ‘‘specific con-
`mental framework used for approach-
`participants in these industries from
`tribution’’ or ‘‘inventive features’’ will
`ing the question of a reasonable roy-
`making the same royalty calculations
`not suffice. These terms merely express
`alty, but rather the particular evidence
`in litigation that they would make in
`a hope or objective. But legislation
`and methods used to value some inven-
`an arm’s length transaction. Such an
`needs to be about means, not ends, par-
`tions. It would be a noteworthy omis-
`outcome would be deeply disruptive to
`ticularly if it is intended to achieve its
`sion to avoid mention of the hypo-
`the valuation of patents in these fields.
`results by altering the practices and
`thetical negotiation concept in a bill
`Evidence and techniques whose use is
`outcomes of litigation. I should also
`that regulates damages analysis to the
`endorsed by the market via their reg-
`add that although I have consulted
`degree that this one does. This sub-
`ular use in voluntary negotiations are
`with many neutral experts in the field
`section thus codifies the Federal cir-
`likely to offer the best means of val-
`of patent damages, and many of those
`cuit’s
`jurisprudence on the hypo-
`uing a patent in litigation. After all,
`experts described to me what they be-
`thetical negotiation.
`Subsection (c) simply makes clear
`what is an object in commerce worth,
`lieved to be serious problems with pat-
`that, despite subsection (d), (e), and
`other than what the market is willing
`ent damages litigation, none of those
`(f)’s codification and modification of
`to pay? We simply cannot enact a law
`experts told me that insufficiently spe-
`several of the Georgia-Pacific factors,
`that bars patentees from using in liti-
`cific claim construction is causing ex-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`

`
`S9984
`September 27, 2008
`CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
`found the bill ambiguous on this point,
`the rest of the Georgia-Pacific fac-
`not uncommon for high-technology
`and in any event the lack of an excep-
`products to be covered by thousands of
`tors—as well as any other appropriate
`tion would have forced parties to liti-
`different patents, which are of greatly
`factor—may be used as appropriate to
`gate the question whether an estab-
`differing value. Not every one of those
`calculate the amount of a reasonable
`lished royalty was, in fact, based on
`patents can be worth 1 percent of reve-
`royalty.
`Subsection (d) is probably the most
`the benefits and advantages of the use
`nues. Some patents inevitably will be
`important subsection in the bill’s re-
`of the patent. Since established royal-
`for features that are trivial, that are
`vised section 284. It bars the use of in-
`ties are widely considered to be the
`irrelevant to consumers, or that could
`gold standard for valuing a patent, we
`be reproduced by unpatented, off-the-
`dustry averages, rule-of-thumb profit
`should avoid making it harder to use
`shelf noninfringing substitutes. One
`splits, and other standardized measures
`this method. It is thus expressly placed
`percent of the sales revenue from, for
`to value a patent except under par-
`outside the scope of subsection (d)’s re-
`example, a laptop computer is an enor-
`ticular circumstances. Standardized
`strictions by paragraph (2).
`mous sum of money. Many patents are
`measures are defined as those methods
`Paragraph (3) of subsection (d) allows
`worth nothing near that, and any
`that, like rule of thumb and industry
`industry averages to continue to be
`methodology that starts at that num-
`averages, do not gauge the particular
`used to confirm that results produced
`ber is likely to produce a grossly in-
`benefits and advantages of the use of a
`by other,
`independently allowable
`flated result in a large number of cases.
`patent. Instead, they are relatively
`methods fall within a reasonable range.
`It bears also mentioning some of
`crude, cookie-cutter measures that
`The paragraph speaks of ‘‘independ-
`those common methodologies that
`purport to value all patents—or at
`ently’’ allowable methods in order to
`clearly are not standardized measures.
`least all patents in a class—in the same
`make clear that an industry average
`In addition to established royalties,
`way, without regard to a particular
`cannot be used to confirm an estimate
`which are afforded an express exemp-
`patent’s economic value. These back-
`produced solely by reference to a
`tion from this subsection by paragraph
`of-the envelope methods are occasion-
`‘‘comparable’’ patent. Subsection (e)
`(2), there are the methods of calcu-
`ally used in arm’s-length, voluntary li-
`requires that comparables only be used
`lating the costs of designing around a
`censing negotiations, as are things
`in conjunction with or to confirm other
`patent, drawing comparisons to the ex-
`such as gut instinct and intuition. But
`methods, and thus under this bill
`perience of noninfringing alternatives,
`they are rough methods that can
`comparables are not a method whose
`or calculating the costs savings pro-
`produce wildly inaccurate results. Sub-
`use is allowed ‘‘independently’’ of other
`duced by use of the invention. All of
`section (d) disfavors their use.
`methods.
`these factors gauge the benefits and ad-
`This subsection restricts the use of
`A brief explanation is in order as to
`vantages of the use of the invention
`Georgia-Pacific factor 12, which largely
`why this bill regards industry averages
`and therefore are outside the scope of
`describes the rule of thumb. Subsection
`as a potentially unreliable metric and
`subsection (d).
`(d)’s general rule cites the rule of
`restricts their use. An industry average
`Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) allows
`thumb and industry averages as impor-
`often will reflect a broad range of li-
`parties to use a standardized measure,
`tant and
`illustrative examples of
`censing rates within a technological
`such as a rule-of-thumb profit split, if
`standardized measures. But it also ex-
`sector. Even a licensed patent whose
`that party can show that the patented
`pressly applies to other methods that
`value is included in the calculation of
`invention is the primary reason why
`are ‘‘not based on the particular bene-
`such a range may fall at a far end of
`consumers buy the infringing product.
`fits and advantages’’ of an invention,
`that range, producing highly inac-
`If the patented invention is the pri-
`to ensure that variations on these ex-
`curate results if that average is used as
`mary reason why people buy the prod-
`amples and other methods that consist
`a starting point for calculating the
`uct, then the patent effectively is the
`of the same evil also are brought with-
`value of that patent. Moreover, many
`reason for the commercial success of
`in the scope of subsection (d)’s main
`existing patents, though valid and in-
`the product, and its owner is entitled
`rule.
`fringed by a product, disclose trivial
`to a substantial share of the profits,
`An example of a standardized meas-
`inventions that add little to the value
`minus business risk, marketing, and
`ure other than profit splits and indus-
`of the product. But the types of patents
`other contributions made by the in-
`try averages that is also currently in
`that typically are licensed—and that
`fringer.
`use and that also falls within sub-
`therefore would be a source of avail-
`Some have advocated a lower stand-
`section (d)’s scope is the so-called IBM
`able data for calculating an industry
`ard than ‘‘primary reason’’ for allowing
`1-percent-up-to-5 formula. This for-
`average—are the ones that are substan-
`use of profit splits and other standard-
`mula apparently was used by IBM in
`tial and valuable. Trivial patents don’t
`ized measures—for example, using a
`the past to license its own portfolio of
`get licensed, and their value does not
`‘‘substantial basis’’ standard. I rejected
`patents. Under this methodology, each
`enter into industry average calcula-
`the use of a lower standard because a
`patent receives 1 percent of the reve-
`tions. Thus particularly in the case of
`profit split should basically award to
`nues on a product until a 5 percent
`a minor patent that has never been and
`the patent owner all of the profits on
`ceiling is reached, at which point the
`likely never would be licensed, an in-
`the product minus those attributable
`whole portfolio of patents is made
`dustry average would provide an in-
`to business risk. Thus the test for al-
`available to the licensee.
`flated estimate of the patent’s value.
`lowing such profit splits must be one
`I have heard more than one rep-
`This is because the industry average is
`that only one patent will meet per
`resentative of a high-technology com-
`not the average licensing rate of all
`product, since the bulk of the profits
`pany describe the use of this formula in
`patents in a field, but merely the aver-
`can only be awarded once. If the test
`litigation against his company. Appar-
`age of those that have been licensed
`were ‘‘substantial basis,’’ for example,
`ently, there exists a stable of plaintiff-
`and for which data is publicly avail-
`multiple patents could meet the stand-
`side damages expert witnesses who will
`able.
`ard and multiple patent owners could
`testify that this formula is appropriate
`Paragraph (4) of subsection (d) cre-
`demand all of the profits minus busi-
`for and is customarily used to cal-
`ates a safety valve that allows parties
`ness risk on the product.
`culate the value of any patent in the
`to use standardized measures if no
`Paragraph (2) of subsection (d) makes
`computer or information-technologies
`other method is reasonably available
`established royalties an express excep-
`sectors. These experts start at 1 per-
`to calculate a reasonable royalty, and
`tion to the bar on standardized meas-
`cent and then adjust that number
`the standardized method is otherwise
`ures. In earlier drafts, I did not include
`based on the other Georgia-Pacific fac-
`shown to be appropriate for the patent.
`this exception in the bill because I
`tors, supposedly to account for the par-
`Over the course of drafting this bill, I
`thought it obvious that an established
`ticular aspects of the patent in suit,
`have consulted with a number of ex-
`royalty is based on the benefits and ad-
`though these adjustments almost al-
`perts with broad experience in patent
`vantages of the use of the invention
`ways seem to push the number higher.
`damages calculation. Only a few be-
`and is thus outside the scope of the
`Obviously, 1 percent of revenues or
`lieved that they had ever seen a case
`subsection (d) rule. Some parties who
`even profits is a grossly inflated value
`where use of a standardized measure
`reviewed those earlier drafts, however,
`for many high-technology patents. It is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`

`
`S9985
`September 27, 2008
`CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
`too broad. Parties might define ‘‘indus-
`back-of-the-envelope calculation that
`was necessary—that is, where a more
`requires only one expert to give you
`try’’ so expansively that every patent
`precise economic analysis was not fea-
`the industry average licensing rate and
`in the universe would fall into one of
`sible. I thus anticipate that this safety
`another to calculate the gross revenues
`only two or three ‘‘industries.’’
`valve may almost never need to be
`on the product. When a complex eco-
`used, but I nevertheless include it in
`Paragraph (2) of subsection (e) sets
`nomic analysis that focuses on non-
`the bill, because it is impossible to say
`out guideposts for determining whether
`infringing alternatives to the patented
`with certainty that no situation will
`a patent is economically comparable to
`invention or the costs of a design-
`ever arise in the future where parties
`another patent. It suggests requiring a
`around is forced to compete for the
`will be unable to calculate a reasonable
`showing that the supposed comparable
`jury’s favor with a simple average-rate-
`royalty without use of the rule of
`is of similar significance to the li-
`times-sales calculation, many jurors
`thumb or other standardized measures.
`censed product as the patent in suit is
`may find the simpler and readily un-
`Suffice to say that if one party to a
`to the infringing product, and that the
`derstandable method more intuitively
`suit presents appropriate evidence of a
`licensed and infringing products have a
`appealing, even if it is less accurate.
`patent’s value and that evidence falls
`similar profit margin. Obviously, a pat-
`And of course, when two different and
`outside the scope of subsection (d) or
`ent that makes only a trivial contribu-
`even slightly complex damages calcula-
`within one of the other exceptions,
`tion to a product cannot accurately be
`tions are presented to a jury, there al-
`then that method is ‘‘reasonably avail-
`valued by reference to a comparable
`ways exists a risk that the jury will re-
`able’’ and paragraph (4) could not be in-
`that makes a critical and valuable con-
`solve the dispute by splitting the dif-
`voked.
`tribution to its licensed product, or
`ference between the two methods. In a
`A word about the need for sub-
`vice versa. And similarity in the profit-
`high-value case where the patent owner
`stantive standards: some critics of S.
`ability of the licensed and infringing
`uses an unsound method that produces
`1145 have made the argument to me
`products will also generally be impor-
`a wildly inflated number, the risk that
`that any problems with damages litiga-
`tant to establishing the economic com-
`the jury will pick the wrong method or
`tion can be cured through procedural
`parability of two patents. As an eco-
`even split the difference may easily be
`reforms, and that changes to sub-
`nomic reality, when the profits on a
`unacceptable from a business perspec-
`stantive legal standards such as those
`product are high, the manufacturer
`tive.
`in subsections (d) through (f) are un-
`will be more generous with the royal-
`In the end, it is the premise of the
`necessary. These parties also have
`ties that he pays for the patented in-
`rules of evidence that some types of
`made the related, though different ar-
`ventions that are used by the product.
`evidence are so unsound, so prejudicial,
`gument that to the extent that liti-
`This economic reality is undergirded
`or so likely to produce an unjust result
`gants are using unreliable evidence or
`by the fact that it will typically be the
`that we do not require the other side’s
`methodologies, this problem should be
`patented inventions used by a product
`lawyer to debunk this evidence, but
`addressed through cross examination
`that make that product unique in the
`rather we require the judge to bar it
`and advocacy.
`marketplace and allow it to earn high-
`Though I share these critics’ dis-
`from the courtroom altogether. If we
`er profits. Even if two patents are the
`pleasure with S. 1145, I do not think
`find that particular methodologies rou-
`principal patent on products in the
`that problems such as the overuse of
`tinely produce inaccurate and unjust
`same field, if one patent’s product has
`rule of thumb and industry averages
`results, it is appropriate that we
`a 2-percent profit margin and the oth-
`will be completely solved through
`amend the law to directly restrict the
`er’s has a 20-percent profit margin,
`purely procedural reforms. The most
`use of those methodologies.
`that first patent evidently is doing less
`Subsection (e) restricts and regulates
`likely mechanism for excluding these
`to distinguish that product in its mar-
`the use of licenses paid for supposedly
`methodologies would be rule 702. But
`ket and to generate consumer de-
`comparable patents as a means of cal-
`the use of some of these methods for
`mand—and thus has a lower economic
`culating the value of the patent in suit.
`valuing patents is endorsed by multiple
`value.
`The use of comparables is authorized
`experts. These methods, while ulti-
`com-
`of
`analysis
`A
`thorough
`by Georgia-Pacific factor two and can
`mately unsound, represent a signifi-
`parability, of course, likely will depend
`generate probative evidence of a pat-
`cant minority view that is backed by
`in a given case on many factors beyond
`ent’s value. Nevertheless, such use is
`some published commentary, albeit
`those listed here. Subparagraphs (A)
`regulated and restricted by this sub-
`sometimes only commentary in jour-
`and (B) are simply guideposts that de-
`section. Comparables are a valuation
`nals that are exclusively written by,
`scribe two factors that are likely to be
`method that is often abused, both to
`subscribed to, and read by plaintiff-side
`relevant to comparability. The bill
`overvalue and to undervalue patents.
`damages expert witnesses. In such cir-
`only provides that these two factors
`When an infringer is sued for infring

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket