Patent Damages
14Feb/180

Damages opinion related to FRAND excluded due to lack of supporting evidence

Posted by patentda

Authored by: Liz Ranks

The Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell presiding, in Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.,[1] Civil Action 6:11-cv-492-RWS-KNM (E.D.TX Sept. 21, 2017) granted-in-part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain opinions of Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“HP”) F/RAND licensing expert M. Ray Perryman.  The patent-at-issue relates to remotely powering access equipment over an Ethernet network, an act which is essential for practicing certain IEEE standards.  Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as the Daubert standard, the Court analyzed Plaintiff’s motion to exclude HP’s expert’s opinions on 1) royalty stacking; 2) applying definitions from an IEEE document to its patent policy; 3) patent hold-up; and 4) influence of the threat of an injunction on past licenses.  Due to a lack of supporting evidence, the Court excluded Perryman’s opinions, with the exception that Perryman would be allowed to apply the definitions from an IEEE document to Plaintiff’s patent policy.

Tagged as: Continue reading
15Mar/16Off

EDTX issues Daubert ruling on FRAND damages including “top down” approach

Posted by Chris Marchese

The Eastern District of Texas, in Metaswitch Networks Ltd. V. Genband US LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00744 (Judge Payne) (March 7, 2015), addressed a number of issues in a FRAND case involving an IETF standard.  Specifically, defendant moved under Daubert to exclude certain opinions of plaintiff’s damages expert Matthew R. Lynde.  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion.

1Aug/13Off

NDCA finds violation of FRAND for seeking ITC exclusion order

Posted by Justin Barnes

On May 20, Judge Whyte in the Northern District of California issued his second FRAND-related opinion of the month, this time in Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-03451.  According to the Court

This dispute concerns whether a holder of patents essential to an industry standard ("standard-essential patents") may commence an action before the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ("Section 337 action") seeking an exclusion order and injunctive relief against a party practicing that standard without violating its obligation to license the standard-essential patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory ("RAND") terms.

Realtek had moved for summary judgment that LSI and Agere had breached their FRAND obligations by failing to offer a license on reasonable terms prior to seeking an exclusion order from the ITC.  Realtek also moved for an order barring LSI and Agere from enforcing or seeking to enforce an exclusion order.  The patents at issue related to 802.11 wireless standards, and Agere had agreed to license its 802.11-related patents on FRAND terms.

31Jul/13Off

NDCA sets FRAND rates for Rambus’ SDRAM patents as sanction

Posted by Justin Barnes

On May 9, Judge Whyte in the Northern District of California issued an order in SK Hynix Inc. v. Rambus Inc., the latest opinion in an ongoing patent saga that has lasted a decade.  Of interest to patent damages in Judge Whyte’s order was his setting of a FRAND rate as a sanction against Rambus for spoliation.  Put differently, the sanction Judge Whyte determined was most appropriate for the spoliation was to strike any damages above and beyond a “reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty.”  The rationale for this was to ensure that SK Hynix would not be “put at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.”

29Jul/13Off

WDWA sets FRAND rates for 802.11 networking and H.264 video

Posted by Justin Barnes

On April 25, 2013, Judge Robart of the Western District of Washington issued a 200+ page findings of fact and conclusions of law in Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-01823 (Doc. No. 681), addressing a multitude of issues, but of particular interest, FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) rates for patents relating to two well-known industry standards.  The standards at issue were the IEEE wireless local area network (“WLAN”) standard, 802.11, and the ITU advanced video coding standard, H.264.