Blog
Federal Circuit Affirms Ongoing Royalty in Bard v. W.L. Gore
Authors
- Name
- Chris Marchese
- Person title
- Principal
In an earlier post dated December 1, 2010 (https://patent-damages.com/2010/12/detailed-opinion-on-ongoing-royalties-from-arizona-court/), we addressed a case between Bard and W.L. Gore from the District of Arizona involving ongoing royalties (i.e., royalties awarded after post-judgment motions). The case presented an interesting and detailed study in the analysis of ongoing royalties, even including a license agreement at the end of the opinion.
The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which issued its decision on February 10, 2012, affirming the award of ongoing royalties. The Federal Circuit held the district court had not abused its discretion in setting the ongoing royalty rate. Although the treatment of this issue spanned only 2+ pages, the court made some observations that will serve as guidance for district courts addressing this issue in the future. Some key points:
- The "district court must explain the reasoning in establishing the appropriate royalty rate." Slip op. at page 38.
- District court can set different royalty rates for different products, depending on economic factors.
- One such factor is where the patentee and infringer compete against one another for sales of the product at issue. Such competition may support a higher royalty rate than for infringing products where there is no competition. "[T]aking economic market forces into account is a reasonable and valid assumption by the district court." Id.
- Another factor is the infringer's profits from the infringing product large profit margins will support a higher rate.
- Changed status post-verdict may support an ongoing royalty rate higher than that set by the jury. In particular, the court suggested that willful infringement and continued post-verdict infringement may lead to a higher post-verdict royalty. In addition, a patentee that lacks incentive to accept a below-market deal may inflate the post-verdict rate.
- However, if the infringer has added value to an infringing product (beyond the patented feature), that fact may drive down the ongoing royalty rate.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
More by same author(s)
Blog October 5, 2022
DDE Excludes Damages Testimony Based on "Built-In Apportionment," Prior Jury Verdicts, and Settlement Agreements
Blog April 26, 2022
Marking and Pre-Suit Damages: What Happens when a Failure to Mark Is Followed by a Period of Compliance with the Marking Statute?
Article April 19, 2022
Patent Licensing
Blog July 30, 2021
Does Section 287(a) Apply to Agreements That Do Not Contain a Patent License?
Blog December 30, 2016
EDTX denies exclusion of settlement license and "real estate" apportionment
Blog December 23, 2016
DDE denies request to strike lost profits opinion re non-patented items; addresses test data admissibility
Article December 14, 2016
How to build Daubert-proof patent damages cases
Blog October 6, 2016
EDTX denies exclusion of settlement license and "real estate" apportionment
Blog September 6, 2016
D.Ariz excludes expert for not apportioning the rate, but OKs entire product as base
Related thought leadership
Blog March 18, 2025
Federal Circuit: PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From Original Patent’s Issue Date
Blog March 14, 2025
Trump Nominates John Squires as USPTO Director: Here’s What to Watch
Blog February 18, 2025
How Startups Can Position Their IP Portfolios to Attract Investors
Blog January 21, 2025
How Standardization, SEPs, and Patent Pools Can Benefit the EV and Battery Industries
Blog January 8, 2025
Assessing a Startup’s IP: Key Questions to Ask
Blog January 7, 2025
Protecting Innovation in an AI-Powered Age: Patents
Blog November 25, 2024
Legal Alert: New USPTO Patent Fees Go Into Effect January 19, 2025
Article November 20, 2024
How a Second Trump Presidency Could Shape IP
Blog November 5, 2024
Women’s Health Tech Entrepreneurs Combat Period Poverty and Increase Representation at the USPTO
Blog October 8, 2024
Legal Alert: USPTO’s AFCP 2.0 Program to End December 14