|
Implications for the EMVR and Alternatives to the 25 Percent Rule
A live 90-minute CLE webinar/teleconference with interactive Q&A
Sponsored by the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications
Tuesday, March 1, 2011 ~ 1:00pm-2:30pm EST
Price: $297
 |
Please note: You will be taken to the Strafford website to complete your order. |
This CLE webinar will provide guidance to counsel to establish patent infringement damages, examine Uniloc and other recent decisions—and what the findings mean for patent holders, accused infringers and their counsel, and discuss the economic and financial tools available to estimate reasonable royalty damages.
Description
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is not waiting for Congress to initiate patent reform. In several recent decisions, Federal Circuit judges give a clearer picture of what is needed to establish damages for patent infringement.
Most recently, the Federal Circuit ruled that the widely-used 25 percent rule of thumb is “inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence”and 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 of isolating the contribution of the patented technology in the determination of reasonable royalty damages. These decisions effectively raise the evidentiary standards required for the determination of patent damages.
Listen as our authoritative panel provides a detailed examination of key recent decisions, the impact on patent damages law, and what the findings mean for patent holders, accused infringers and their counsel. The panel will also discuss economic and financial tools available to practitioners in estimating reasonable royalty damages.
Outline
- Recent patent damages cases
- Uniloc v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2011) – Judge Linn
- IP Innovation v. Red Hat, Novell, Inc. (U.S. Distr. Ct. E. Distr. Texas, Marshall, March 2, 2010) – Judge Rader
- ResQnet.Com v. Lansa, (CAFC, Feb. 5, 2010) – Judge Rader
- i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2009) – Judge Prost
- Lucent v. Gateway (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2009) – Chief Judge Michel
- Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard (N.D.N.Y. March 2009) – Judge Rader
- Impact of these decisions on patent damages law
- Implications of these decisions for patent holders and accused infringers
- What has changed/not changed?
- Key economic question
- Shift in patented technology
- Apportionment
- EMVR
- Analytical tools
- 25 Percent Rule
- Comparable license agreements
- Cost of implementing non-infringing alternatives
- Analytical Method
- DCF
- Nash Bargaining solution
- Surveys
- Hedonic analysis
- Conjoint analysis
Benefits
The panel will review these and other key questions:
- What mandatory conditions must be met for applying the entire market value rule?
- What guidance does the Uniloc ruling and other recent decisions offer for proving patent damages?
- How have the recent decisions effectively raised the evidentiary standards for the determination of patent damages?
Following the speaker presentations, you’ll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A.
Faculty
Paul R. Michel, Chief Circuit Judge (Ret.)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C.
He was appointed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1988. On Dec. 25, 2004, he assumed the duties of Chief Judge. Since becoming Chief Judge, he has served as one of 27 judges comprising the Judicial Conference of the United States. In 2005 he was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve on the seven-judge Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference.
John C. Jarosz, Managing Principal
Analysis Group, Washington, D.C.
He evaluates damages in patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, and unfair competition cases in which the types of damages have included lost profits, reasonable royalties, price erosion, unjust enrichment, accelerated market entry, and prejudgment interest. He also provides strategy consultation, and has given expert economic testimony in matters involving intellectual property.
Carla S. Mulhern, Managing Principal
Analysis Group, Washington, D.C.
She specializes in the application of economic principles to issues arising in complex business litigation. She has served as an expert witness on damages issues in commercial litigation matters, including intellectual property and breach of contract cases, and has provided expert testimony in patent infringement cases.
George F. Pappas, Partner
Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.
He focuses on patent law and intellectual property litigation. He represented clients across a broad range of industries including computer and electronics, software, telecommunications, financial services, biotechnology, medical device, and the pharmaceutical industry. He has served as lead counsel in more than 350 cases.
Register Today!
Price covers an unlimited number of staff at your office location. Can’t participate in the live seminar? A CD of the full event proceedings, including Q&A and PDF files of all handouts, will be available 10 days after the seminar.
Continuing Legal Education
Continuing Legal Education credits are granted for an additional $65 per person. Please refer to the options on the order page to take advantage of these credits.
Please note: You will be taken to the
Strafford website to complete your order.
| 
