15 Cited authorities

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 611 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"
Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 453 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that when deciding whether the means test is triggered, the question is whether "in view of the specification, prosecution history, etc.," the patent "still provide sufficient structure such that the presumption against means-plus-function claiming remains intact"
Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.
802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 361 times
Holding that the district court did not err by declining to construe the term "[b]eing provided to"
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 411 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence relying on "25 percent rule of thumb," which was a tool used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate the manufacturer of patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation, was inadmissible under Daubert since it failed to tie a reasonably royalty base to facts of case at issue
Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.
773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 307 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a general verdict will not be set aside if there is sufficient evidence to support any of the alternative factual theories so long as there is no dispute over the legal propriety of the jury instruction
Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 290 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the entire market value rule applies if the patentee establishes that its "patented technology drove demand for the entire product."
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.
879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 167 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims to a "behavior-based virus scan" provided greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality
Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC
879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 139 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that term of degree did not require “numerical precision” because the disputed claim was written using “[f]unctional language” that “provide[d] further guidance regarding the scope of the claim language”
Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 245 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"
Unisplay v. American Electronic Sign Co.
69 F.3d 512 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 159 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reasonable royalty larger than that contained in license proposals and agreements was not supported by the evidence
Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
Fed. R. Evid. 703 Cited 4,701 times 25 Legal Analyses
Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
Section 284 - Damages
35 U.S.C. § 284 Cited 2,070 times 194 Legal Analyses
Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

Nichia Corporation v. VIZIO, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

Holding that when deciding whether the means test is triggered, the question is whether "in view of the specification, prosecution history, etc.," the patent "still provide sufficient structure such that the presumption against means-plus-function claiming remains intact"

Holding that the district court did not err by declining to construe the term "[b]eing provided to"

Holding that a general verdict will not be set aside if there is sufficient evidence to support any of the alternative factual theories so long as there is no dispute over the legal propriety of the jury instruction

Holding that the entire market value rule applies if the patentee establishes that its "patented technology drove demand for the entire product."

Holding that claims to a "behavior-based virus scan" provided greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality

Holding that term of degree did not require “numerical precision” because the disputed claim was written using “[f]unctional language” that “provide[d] further guidance regarding the scope of the claim language”

Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

Holding that a reasonable royalty larger than that contained in license proposals and agreements was not supported by the evidence

Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"