The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on March 1, regarding the constitutionality of the
inter partes review (IPR) system. The Court s decision, which will likely issue this summer, could have far-reaching consequences for both current and future participants in patent cases.
In October 2019, in
Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. APJs at the PTAB render decisions on the patentability of issued patents, particularly through the commonly used adversarial IPR process. The Federal Circuit held that the APJs are principal officers, reasoning that [t]he lack of any presidentially-appointed officer who can review, vacate, or correct decisions by the APJs combined with limited removal power lead us to conclude … that these
Share this article
RESTON, Va., Feb. 23, 2021 /PRNewswire/ Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS), a FORTUNE 500
® science and technology leader, today reported financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020.
Roger Krone, Leidos Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, commented: Fourth quarter results reflect the resilience of our growing portfolio with new record levels of revenue and backlog, coupled with margin expansion and further balance sheet optimization. This performance positions us for above-market growth in 2021, fueled by our talented diverse workforce who continue to engineer and deliver technologically innovative and secure solutions for our customers evolving needs.
Fourth Quarter Summary Results
In
Vectura, the Federal Circuit recently reiterated that the entire market value of an accused multicomponent product may serve as the royalty base if the patent damages analysis is built on sufficiently comparable licenses.
Vectura Limited v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, 981 F.3d 1030, 1040-1042 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Pursuit of the entire market value of a multicomponent product ordinarily requires the patentee to demonstrate that the infringing feature drives customer demand for the product.
Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Without such evidence, the patentee must apportion down either the royalty base or the royalty rate to account for the difference between the patented features and the conventional features of the accused product.
While Apple may appeal a Texas federal judge's order granting VirnetX Inc. costs and prejudgment interest on top of the $503 million patent trial verdict, it agrees that the amount of such costs and prejudgment interest, using the court's methodology, would total $75.6 million, VirnetX said Wednesday.
Share this article
Share this article
ZEPHYR COVE, Nev., Jan. 21, 2021 /PRNewswire/ VirnetX™ Holding Corporation (NYSE: VHC), an Internet security software and technology company, announced today that jt has submitted an Agreed Bill of Costs and Prejudgement Interest in the amount of $75,701,763.18 in connection with the previously announced $502,848,847 jury verdict against Apple in
VirnetX Inc., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:12-CV-00855. With the addition of these costs and prejudgement interest, the final judgment in VirnetX s favor for Apple infringing devices sold in the U.S. now totals $578,550,610. Post-trial interest, supplemental damages and the total amount of the $0.84 ongoing royalty per infringing Apple device have yet to be determined.