Blog
Nevada court imposes 3X post-judgment royalty in lieu of injunction
Authors
-
- Name
- Person title
- Principal
The District of Nevada, in Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion Corp., 3:06-CV-00698-LRH-VPC (Judge Larry R. Hicks) (March 31, 2015), denied plaintiff's request for injunction but granted a post-judgment royalty of 15%, which was 3X the jury's 5% royalty. The section of the opinion is brief and is quoted nearly in full here:
The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that a compulsory license at a 15% royalty rate is an appropriate remedy in this action. First, the court notes that absent a compulsory license, STI will continue to suffer harm from the sale of the AP7900 and AP8900 products. Second, a 15% royalty rate, or three times the jury's 5% reasonable royalty rate, on post-judgment sales is reasonable in this action. Because there is an inherent and fundamental difference between pre-verdict infringement where the question of patent validity and infringement are questionable and post-verdict infringement where those questions have been answered affirmatively the calculus for determining an appropriate or reasonable royalty rate changes. Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In order to avoid incentivizing defendants to fight each patent infringement action for as long as possible to obtain the maximum benefit of infringement, an ongoing post-verdict royalty may appropriately be higher than the jury's pre-verdict reasonable royalty. Id. Here, a 15% royalty rate would still leave APC with a reasonable profit on sales as well as an incentive to sell products under the license especially as the evidence in this action established that APC had sales in excess of $215 million from 2006-2013 on the infringing products. Further, a 15% royalty rate would more equitably compensate STI for any lost sales, customer goodwill, and lost market share. Therefore, the court shall grant STI's motion and set a compulsory license of the patents-in-suit with an ongoing royalty rate of 15% from the date of judgment.
Slip op. at 8.
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.