Economics + Law = Damages
The Federal Circuit offered its view on the perennial topic of comparable licenses. An earlier post provides background on this matter pending in the Southern District of California. To make a short post shorter, Judge Sabraw granted a JMOL on damages after trial, noting that Mr. Kennedy’s damages analysis was based on Dr. Madisetti’s unapportioned technical analysis. The court concluded that, “Dr. Madisetti’s testimony conflated the patented technology with VoLTE generally,” and offered a remittitur on dam
Mr. David Kennedy, Wi Lan’s damages expert, relied on several licenses to the patents-in-suit for his royalty analysis. Those licenses were to a portfolio of patents, among which were the patents in suit. Mr. Kennedy testified that generally a portfolio license revolves around “key patents,” and that other patents included in a portfolio license tend not to constitute the basis of value, but rather involve a licensor “throwing in the chaff with the wheat.”