Patent Infringement Royalty Damages: Lessons Learned Post-Uniloc

Implications for the EMVR and Alternatives to the 25 Percent Rule

Recording of a 90-minute premium CLE webinar with Q&A

Conducted on Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Course Materials

This CLE course will prepare patent counsel to establish infringement damages, examine Uniloc and other recent decisions—and what the findings mean for patentholders, accused infringers and their counsel—and discuss the economic and financial tools available to estimate reasonable royalty damages.


Several recent Federal Circuit and district court decisions provide more clarity to what is needed to establish damages for patent infringement. They also raised a number of issues that counsel need to be prepared to deal with when presenting their damages cases to the courts.

In 2011, the Federal Circuit ruled that the widely-used 25 percent rule of thumb is “inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence." The court cautioned against “admitting consideration of the entire market value where the patented component does not create the basis for customer demand.”

Other recent decisions emphasize the importance in some circumstances of isolating the contribution of the patented technology in the determination of reasonable royalty damages. These decisions arguably raise the evidentiary standards required for the determination of patent damages.

Listen as our experienced panel provides a detailed examination of key recent decisions, reviews the impact on patent damages law, and analyzes the findings for patentholders, accused infringers and their counsel. The panel will also discuss economic and financial tools available to practitioners in estimating reasonable royalty damages.



  1. Recent patent damages cases
    1. Uniloc v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2011)
    2. IP Innovation v. Red Hat, Novell Inc. (U.S.D.C. E.D. Tex. 2010)
    3. ResQnet.Com v. Lansa (Fed. Cir. 2010)
    4. Lucent v. Gateway (Fed. Cir. 2009)
    5. Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard (N.D.N.Y. 2009)
    6. Impact of these decisions on patent damages law
    7. Implications of these decisions for patent holders and accused infringers
  2. What has changed/not changed?
    1. Key economic question
    2. Shift in patented technology
    3. Apportionment
    4. Entire market value rule
  3. Analytical tools
    1. 25 percent rule
    2. Comparable license agreements
    3. Cost of implementing non-infringing alternatives
    4. Analytical method
    5. DCF
    6. Nash bargaining solution
    7. Surveys
    8. Hedonic analysis
    9. Conjoint analysis


The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • What conditions must be met for applying the entire market value rule?
  • What guidance do the Uniloc ruling and other recent decisions offer for proving patent damages?
  • Have the recent decisions effectively raised the evidentiary standards for the determination of patent damages?
  • How will courts be handling these very difficult questions in the immediate future?

Following the speaker presentations, you'll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A.


Troy E. Grabow
Troy E. Grabow

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

He has a broad range of experience in all aspects of patent law, including U.S. district court and appellate...  |  Read More

Krista F. Holt
Krista F. Holt

President & CEO
GreatBridge Consulting

Ms. Holt provides expert witness testimony at trial for patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, false...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Audio