Lost Profits in a Multicomponent World

38 Pages Posted: 11 Aug 2017 Last revised: 28 Aug 2018

See all articles by Bernard Chao

Bernard Chao

University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Date Written: August 10, 2017

Abstract

Given our adversarial system, it is not surprising that plaintiffs advance creative damages theories that would help them maximize their recoveries. In patent law, one recurring tactic is for patentees to seek remedies based on the entire infringing product instead of just the specific feature covered by the patent. This distinction can significantly inflate remedies because modern multicomponent products contain thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of different features. Thus, entire products are orders of magnitude larger, more complex and more valuable than individual features.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has sensibly rejected attempts to base patent remedies on entire products in the context of permanent injunctions and design patents. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit continues to allow patentees to recover all the lost profits associated with an entire infringing product even when the patent at issue only covers one aspect of a multicomponent product. Just this past spring, in Mentor Graphics v. Eve-USA, the Federal Circuit affirmed a $36,417,661 award giving the patentee all the lost profits caused by the sales of the defendant’s infringing semiconductor emulator systems even though the patent covered only one feature of the defendant’s whole product. The decision explicitly rejected attempts to apportion profits between those attributable to the patented feature and other significant factors.

This Article argues that the failure to consider apportionment is wrong on both the law and policy. From a doctrinal perspective, the Federal Circuit has misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent, dating back to the nineteenth century, to arrive at an overly simplistic “but for” test to assess damages. From a policy perspective awarding lost profits based on the entire infringing product – rather than just the feature – compensates the patentee for value she did not create and deters innovation in technologies that operate with or build upon other technology (“complementary technology”). Accordingly, this Article argues that it is time to realign lost profits doctrine to make it consistent with other types of patent remedies. Patentees should only be compensated based on the value of the patent they hold. That means focusing the remedy on the infringing feature and not the infringing product.

Keywords: Patents, Remedies, Lost Profits, Apportionment

JEL Classification: O30

Suggested Citation

Chao, Bernard H., Lost Profits in a Multicomponent World (August 10, 2017). 59 Boston College Law Review 1321 (2018); U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 17-23. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3016814 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3016814

Bernard H. Chao (Contact Author)

University of Denver Sturm College of Law ( email )

2255 E. Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
117
Abstract Views
1,499
rank
243,200
PlumX Metrics