About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

19 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2015-2016)
Bargaining Power and Patent Damages

handle is hein.journals/stantlr19 and id is 9 raw text is: BARGAINING POWER AND PATENT DAMAGES J. Gregory Sidak CITE AS: 19 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2015) ABSTRACT In patent-infringement litigation, if no established royalty for the patent in suit has emerged from multiple market transactions at a readily observable price, then thefinder of fact needs to infer a reasonable royalty from the many factors identified in the Georgia- Pacific framework. The well-recognized problem with the Georgia-Pacific framework is that it poses many potentially relevant questions but does not say how the finder of fact should weight the answers. The case law offers no algorithm or decision tree for the finder of fact to follow. Courts find expert testimony inadmissible if it does not apply intellectually rigorous economic methods and principles to the facts and data of the case to produce results that are replicable and falsifiable. With modest effort, and without repudiating existing precedent, the courts can make the Georgia-Pacific framework far more coherent, predictable, and intellectually rigorous. From an economic perspective, that framework ultimately leads the finder offactfirst, to determine the gains from trade-which economists call surplus-arising from a hypothetical, voluntary negotiation between a willing licensor and a willing licensee just before the moment offirst infringement and, second, to divide that surplus between the licensor and licensee according to their relative bargaining power. For brevity and clarity, I call these two culminating steps the surplus-division principle. This principle is more reliable than purporting to set a reasonable royalty on the basis of a mathematical theory (such as the Nash bargaining solution) that is too abstract tofit the facts and data of the case. It is also more reliable than an expert's idiosyncratic and nonfalsifiable claim to have balanced the totality of the circumstances in light of his professional experience. In contrast to both a theoretical black box and an expert's ipse dixit, the surplus-division principle uses elementary principles of microeconomics to give coherence to the Georgia- Pacific factors that courts have already defined and applied. The result enables thefinder of fact to determine a licensor's minimum willingness to accept and a licensee's maximum willingness to pay for the patented technology, and thereby to define the bargaining range for a hypothetical negotiation. This method is robust across different factual scenarios and multiple defendants. 1 Chairman, Criterion Economics, L.L.C., Washington, D.C. Email: jgsidak@criterioneconomics.com. For their helpful comments, I thank two anonymous referees selected by the Stanford Technology Law Review pursuant to its peer-review procedures. The views expressed here are solely my own. 6 2015 J. Gregory Sidak. All rights reserved.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most