Patent Damages: The Basics
![handle is hein.journals/idea34 and id is 21 raw text is: PATENT DAMAGES:
THE BASICS
BY NANCY J. LINCK AND BARRY P. GOLOB1
I. INTRODUCTION
Once a patent is held valid, enforceable and infringed, then the issue
of damages must be addressed. In patent cases, damages are provided
by statute:
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award damages adequate
to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable
royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with
interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them.
In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the
amount found or assessed.
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of
damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
[35 U.S.C. § 284]
Thus, a patentee whose patent has been infringed, is entitled to: (1)
an award of lost profits from sales the patentee would have made but
for the infringement;2 or (2) a reasonable royalty on the infringing sales;3
© 1993 Cushman, Darby & Cushman. Nancy J. Linck, Ph.D. is a partner at Cushman,
Darby & Cushman, Washington, D.C.; Barry P. Golob is an associate at the firm.
2 E.g., Standard Haven Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1372, 21
U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 60 (1992); Kaufman
Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 926 F.2d 1136, 1141, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1577, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1026,
1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1022 (1990); Hartness Int'l, Inc. v.
Simplimatic Eng'g Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1112, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1826, 1835 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
Paper Converting Machine Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 21,223 U.S.P.Q.
591, 598 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
E.g., SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs., Corp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1164, 17
U.S.P.Q.2d 1922, 1924 (Fed. Cir. 1991); State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883
F.2d 1573, 1577, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1026, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
1022 (1990); Snellman v. Ricoh Co., 862 F.2d 283, 289-90, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1996 (Fed.
Cir. 1988); TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 898-900, 229 U.S.P.Q. 525,
526-528 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 852 (1986).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/idea34&div=8&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Patent Damages: The Basics
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most