NDCA precludes lost profits where damage was to plaintiff’s related entity, not plaintiff itself
On November 18, 2013, Judge Spero of the Northern District of California issued an order in Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc., Civil No. 3:08-cv-05129, addressing the parties’ competing Daubert and summary judgment motions. Of the many issues raised, one was of particular note, a lengthy discussion on the ability of a plaintiff to seek damages for injury to a related entity. The plaintiff, Volterra Semiconductor, claimed damages “as a result of price erosion caused by Defendants’ infringement on certain sales by its subsidiary, Volterra Asia.” Put differently, because Volterra Asia had to drop its prices because of the alleged infringement, Volterra Semiconductor obtained less profits than it otherwise would have but for the infringement.
The Defendants responded that they were entitled to summary judgment because, under Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc. and Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., a company cannot collect damages that were suffered by separate corporate entities. Specifically, Defendants alleged that the plaintiff was at most a mere shareholder of the harmed entities, and a shareholder does not have standing to sue on its own behalf for diminution in the value of its own shares – i.e., “derivative” harm. Defendants argued that, as a matter of fairness, “a corporation cannot obtain the benefits of adopting a corporate form but then disregard that corporate form when convenient for its recovery.” Volterra countered by arguing that its damages theory was proper because the damages reflect "damages for the economic injury to Volterra Semiconductor itself as a result of price erosion on sales made by its subsidiary, Volterra Asia."
The Court held that while it did not accept all of Defendants’ challenges to Volterra’s damages theory, in the end the theory was still inconsistent with Poly-America and Mars. The Court found that there was no evidence for a jury to conclude that Volterra suffered any direct injury, and thus summary judgment was appropriate:
Nonetheless, damages are available only for "direct" injury. King Instruments, 65 F.3d at 949. Further, under Mars and Poly-America, a separate corporate entity's loss of profits due to price erosion does not constitute a direct injury to the parent because a patent holder may not "enjoy the advantages of their separate corporate structure and, at the same time, avoid the consequential limitations of that structure." Poly-America, 383 F.3d at 1311. Yet that is just what Volterra seeks to do in relying on Dr. Meyer's expert opinions in this case. Dr. Meyer's opinion is that the direct injury to Volterra Semiconductor is, dollar-for-dollar, the decrease in the amount of cash held by its "assets" as a result of price erosion on the subsidiaries' sales. This "injury" is indistinguishable from a claim for the lost profits of a subsidiary….
Volterra seeks to prove that its subsidiary lost profits through price erosion, and, as a
result, the parent lost the exact same amount of money (adjusting only for taxes and royalties) —
now called loss of value of the subsidiary. Although Volterra's expert says that she is just valuing
the assets of the subsidiaries, the fact that the asset value is not only tied to lost profits but is
exactly equal to lost profits requires the conclusion that Plaintiff's theory is not entirely distinct
from a lost profits theory. To hold otherwise would eliminate the rule announced in Mars because a
parent corporation could always recover the lost profits of its wholly owned subsidiary simply by
characterizing them as the lost value of its asset. Indeed, the parent corporation in Mars
presumably could have obtained an award of its subsidiary's lost profits by simply renaming the
loss….
The Court concludes that Volterra's theory as to the Volterra Asia damages, as reflected in
the expert opinions offered by Dr. Meyer, is not "entirely distinct from lost profits" and is barred
by Poly-America and Mars. The Court further finds that Volterra has not demonstrated a material
issue of fact on this question because the expert opinions of Dr. Meyer are the only evidence it
cited in response to Defendants' request for summary judgment to show that Volterra
Semiconductor was directly harmed by price erosion on the Volterra Asia sales.
Cases involving related entities, subsidiaries, and holding corporations have proliferated greatly over the last decade, as companies form related corporations for foreign activities, patent holding entities, and so on, to help with tax issues, avoid potential counterclaims, etc. Opinions like this show that patent strategy should be discussed as part of overall corporate strategy, as there may be good reasons for having the patent-holding entity also be the patent-practicing entity.
Related posts:
- NDCA finds evidence of related company's potential lost profits relevant to hypo negotiation
- District of Connecticut blocks late addition of subsidiary, kills Lost Profits
- NDILL certifies for appeal two lost profits issues relating to a foreign patent owner and its US subsidiary
- SDCA rules on Daubert motions related to both Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalty

Recent Posts
- D. Del. grants a new (third) trial on damages and denies enhanced damages (before a finding of willfulness)
- E.D. Tex. Denies Motion to Exclude Damages Testimony of Non-Infringing Alternatives in Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Calculation
- S.D. Fla. Excludes evidence of pre-litigation negotiations and allows evidence of prior litigations and hypothetical negotiations
- EDVA refuses to strike evidence of prior negotiations and cross-licensing
- DDel holds that determining the royalty base is a relevance issue, not Daubert
Categories
- 25% Rule
- 271(a)
- 271(f)
- 287(a)
- Accelerated Market Entry Theory
- Admissibility of license agreements
- Analytical Method
- and evidence
- Apportionment
- Apportionment – Degree of Use
- apportionment – claim scope
- Apportionment – rate apportioning
- apportionment – real estate approach
- Apportionment – Use of Defendant’s Documents
- Asset or patent sale and reasonable royalties
- Assignment
- Bifurcation of damages
- Book of Wisdom
- Breach of Contract
- Comparable Agreements
- Comparable Licenses
- Cost savings approach
- Court as gatekeeper
- Damages articles
- Daubert
- Discoverability of agreements and other damages-related documents
- Discoverability of license negotiation documents
- Do-overs for expert reports
- Enhanced Damages
- Entire market value rule
- Exclusion Order
- Expert witnesses and admissibility of testimony supporting damages
- Extraterritoriality
- Federal Circuit decisions
- Foreign Sales
- Foreign tax laws & damages
- FRAND
- Future Damages
- Hypothetical License
- Hypothetical Negotiation
- Inexorable flow doctrine of lost profits
- ITC
- Joint infringement
- Judgment as a Matter of Law
- Jury verdict form
- Laches
- Large damages verdicts
- Legislative patent damages reform
- Lost Profits
- Lost profits – market share
- Lost profits requires patentee product
- Lump sum awards and issues
- Market approach
- Market Share
- Marking
- Misuse
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Nash Bargaining Solution
- Net profits computations
- New trial
- Non-infringing alternatives
- Notice
- NPE-specific issues
- Ongoing royalties
- Panduit
- Patent damages books and articles
- Patent damages speeches and seminars
- Patent marking
- Permanent injunction
- Piggy-backing experts
- Post verdict royalties
- Post-Hypo Date Evidence
- Prejudgment interest
- Price Erosion
- Profitability of accused products and royalties
- RAND
- Real Estate Apportionment
- Reasonable royalties: capped
- Reasonable Royalty
- Reasonable royalty – license agreements
- Reasonable royalty – litigation risk multiplier
- Related Entities
- Royalty rate exceeds defendant's profit margin
- Royalty Rate Exceeds Rate to Which Parties Stipulated
- Rule 702
- Sanctions
- Settlement agreements
- Smallest Salable Patent Practicing Unit
- Spoliation
- Standards
- Standing
- Statutory Presumption of Damages
- Stay of damages awards pending appeal
- Subsidary
- Summary Judgment
- Summary judgment for failure of proof
- Supplemental Damages
- Surface Area Apportionment
- Surveys
- U.S. Government Sales and 28 USC 1498
- Uncategorized