Patent Damages And Apportionment Principles.
I. PATENT DAMAGES: OVERVIEW
When a patent is infringed, U.S. law under 35 U.S.C. § 284 provides for damages adequate to compensate the patent holder.
1. Purpose of Patent Damages
Compensate the patent owner for lost profits or reasonable royalties
Restore the patent holder to the position they would have been in absent infringement
2. Types of Patent Damages
Lost Profits
Compensates for sales the patentee lost due to infringement
Requires showing causal connection between infringement and lost sales
Reasonable Royalties
Compensation based on what a willing licensee would pay
Used when lost profits are difficult to prove
Enhanced Damages
Up to 3× actual damages under willful infringement (35 U.S.C. § 284)
II. APPORTIONMENT PRINCIPLES
1. Definition
Apportionment refers to the requirement that damages must be tied to the value of the patented invention, not the entire product if it contains unpatented components.
Key Principle:
Damages should reflect the contribution of the patented feature to the overall product, avoiding overcompensation.
2. Importance
Prevents inflated damages claims
Ensures that patentees are only compensated for the actual inventive contribution
3. Legal Basis
25 U.S.C. § 284 (compensatory damages)
Enforced through case law, especially in complex products like electronics or software
III. KEY CASE LAWS ON PATENT DAMAGES AND APPORTIONMENT
1. LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Facts:
LaserDynamics sued Quanta for patent infringement on optical storage devices.
Issue:
How to calculate damages for a small patented component in a complex device?
Holding:
Apportionment is required; damages must reflect the value of the patented component.
Reasoning:
The patented invention contributed to only a small fraction of the total product value
Court emphasized the entire market value rule (EMVR) applies only when the patented feature drives demand
Impact:
Reinforced need for apportioning royalties based on contribution of the invention
2. VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Facts:
VirnetX held patents for secure communication methods
Cisco sold devices implementing patented features along with other functionalities
Issue:
Whether damages can be based on entire product price
Holding:
No, only value attributable to patented invention
Reasoning:
Patented feature was a small part of the overall product
Expert testimony required apportionment of profits to patented invention
Impact:
Applied strict apportionment for multi-feature products
3. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Facts:
Uniloc claimed Microsoft Windows infringed software activation patent
Issue:
Calculation of reasonable royalty
Holding:
Rejected 25% rule-of-thumb for royalty
Court required apportionment to the value of the patented feature
Reasoning:
Royalty must be tied to the economic value of the patented invention, not general product profits
Experts cannot apply arbitrary percentages without evidence
Impact:
Critically limited arbitrary royalty calculations
Strengthened apportionment requirement in software patents
4. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Facts:
Ericsson sued D-Link for patent infringement in networking devices
Issue:
How to calculate damages when the patented feature drives market demand for specific functionality?
Holding:
EMVR can be applied if the patented feature drives consumer demand for entire product
Reasoning:
Evidence must show feature is the basis for consumer purchase
Damages based on entire product price only if patented feature is the principal value driver
Impact:
Clarified narrow application of entire market value rule
5. Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard, 609 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Facts:
HP printers allegedly infringed Cornell’s laser scanning patents
Issue:
Can damages include unpatented elements of printer?
Holding:
No, damages must be apportioned to the patented invention’s contribution
Reasoning:
Court emphasized expert testimony to determine value added by patented component
Multi-component devices require careful analysis
Impact:
Reinforced apportionment in complex, multi-component products
6. Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)
Facts:
Panduit sued for lost profits due to patent infringement in a conveyor belt system
Holding:
Established four-factor test for lost profits:
Demand for the patented product
Absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes
Manufacturing capacity to meet demand
Amount of profits lost
Reasoning:
Apportionment helps determine portion of lost profits attributable to patented invention
Impact:
Foundation for lost profits analysis in patent damages
IV. PRINCIPLES OF APPORTIONMENT
Entire Market Value Rule (EMVR)
Damages based on the entire product price only if the patented feature drives customer demand
Small Component Apportionment
For complex products, only the value contributed by patented invention is compensable
Expert Testimony
Crucial for economic analysis and valuation
Lost Profits vs Reasonable Royalties
Lost profits require market share and demand analysis
Reasonable royalties require hypothetical negotiation
Avoiding Overcompensation
Apportionment prevents inflated damages for multi-featured products
V. SUMMARY TABLE OF CASES
| Case | Year | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| LaserDynamics v. Quanta | 2012 | Apportionment required for small patented components |
| VirnetX v. Cisco | 2014 | Damages limited to patented invention’s value |
| Uniloc v. Microsoft | 2011 | Rejected 25% arbitrary royalty; must apportion |
| Ericsson v. D-Link | 2014 | EMVR applies only if patented feature drives demand |
| Cornell v. HP | 2010 | Damages apportioned to patented invention’s contribution |
| Panduit v. Stahlin | 1978 | Lost profits analysis and apportionment factors |
VI. KEY TAKEAWAYS
Patent damages must reflect the economic contribution of the patented invention, not the whole product.
Lost profits and reasonable royalties are the primary compensatory remedies.
Entire market value rule is narrowly applied: only when the patented feature drives demand.
Expert analysis is essential for apportionment in complex products.
Avoid arbitrary formulas—damages must be tied to evidence of value contributed by the patent.
RELATED Blog
comments