Damages Archives | IP UPDATE

Damages

Federal Circuit: Unjust enrichment available as damages theory for trade secret misappropriation

by Jodi Benassi | Sep 24, 2026 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment limiting a trade secret plaintiff to a reasonable royalty based on the parties’ licensing history, finding that unjust-enrichment damages are available under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA). The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that liability for misappropriating a combination trade secret requires proof that the defendant knew each specific element comprising the combination. Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Case Nos. 24-1140; -1206; -1234 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2026).

Ford licensed Versata’s Automotive Configuration Manager (ACM) software, which helped Ford configure vehicles for manufacturing. When the parties were unable to agree on an extension of their licensing agreement, Ford released its own configuration software, PDO, which it had developed while still licensing Versata’s software. Versata asserted claims for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA and the MUTSA. Versata alleged that Ford misappropriated three interdependent “combination” trade secrets within ACM: Grid, Buildability, and Workspaces.

Before trial, the district court excluded Versata’s damages expert’s proposed unjust-enrichment analysis, concluding that Versata’s trade secret damages had to be measured by reference to the parties’ licensing history. The court permitted Versata to submit revised reasonable-royalty models but excluded two models because they incorporated the value Ford obtained from using the trade secrets rather than relying solely on the parties’ licensing history.

A jury later found that Ford misappropriated all three ACM trade secrets and breached the parties’ agreement. It awarded Versata approximately $22 million for trade secret misappropriation and $82 million for breach of contract. The district court subsequently reduced the trade secret award to zero and the contract award to $3 million. Versata appealed, and Ford cross-appealed the finding of trade secret liability.

Unjust-enrichment damages

Versata argued that the district court improperly prevented it from seeking unjust-enrichment damages and instead required its damages to be based on the parties’ licensing history. The Federal Circuit agreed.

Applying Sixth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit explained that the plain language of both the DTSA and the MUTSA expressly permits a plaintiff to recover unjust enrichment caused by trade secret misappropriation to the extent that enrichment is not accounted for in calculating actual loss. The statutes separately permit a reasonable royalty “in lieu of” damages measured by other methods. The Court found that Versata was entitled, as a matter of law, to pursue unjust-enrichment damages.

The Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that the parties’ licensing history required Versata’s damages to be measured by a reasonable royalty. Although prior Sixth Circuit decisions had upheld royalty-based awards derived from licensing history, those cases did not establish that a plaintiff was prohibited from pursuing unjust enrichment.

Nor was unjust enrichment available only where damages could not otherwise be measured. The Federal Circuit emphasized that the statutory language expressly allows a plaintiff to pursue unjust-enrichment damages. Because the district court’s contrary ruling affected Versata’s damages case throughout the litigation, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment [...]

Continue Reading

Keyword bidding alone doesn’t constitute trademark infringement

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Aug 13, 2026 | Trademarks

Addressing trademark infringement arising from online advertising, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that purchasing a competitor’s trademark as a keyword (keyword bidding), without displaying or otherwise referencing the mark in the resulting advertisement, does not constitute trademark infringement because the behind-the-scenes use is not likely to confuse consumers. The Court nevertheless upheld the jury’s infringement finding based on the defendant’s visible use of the protected mark in advertising copy, product descriptions, and customer communications. Deltona Transformer Corporation v. The NOCO Company, Case No. 24-13590 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026) (Lagoda, Kidd, Newsom, JJ.)

Deltona Transformer Corporation manufactures vehicle battery chargers that charge a battery to capacity and then maintain the charge without overcharging it. Deltona owns federally registered trademarks for BATTERY TENDER and DELTRAN BATTERY TENDER. One of Deltona’s founders coined the term “battery tender,” drawing on the maritime use of “tender” for a vessel that services or supplies another vessel.

The NOCO Company makes similar battery chargers. Beginning in 2014, NOCO promoted its products using “battery tender” in several ways, including bidding on the term as a search keyword, placing the term in advertisements and product descriptions, and referring to its products as battery tenders in communications with customers and marketing firms. Deltona sued for federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition. A jury found for Deltona and awarded damages, and the district court later ordered disgorgement of NOCO’s profits and entered a permanent injunction. NOCO appealed.

NOCO first argued that Deltona’s marks were generic and therefore unprotectable. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Federal registration provided prima facie evidence of validity, and the Court concluded that “battery tender” was at least descriptive (and potentially suggestive) because “tend” metaphorically rather than literally describes what the charger does. The Court further concluded that a reasonable jury could find secondary meaning based on Deltona’s decades of use, advertising, promotion, and industry recognition.

The Eleventh Circuit also rejected NOCO’s argument that “battery tender” had subsequently become generic. Although NOCO introduced survey evidence indicating that many respondents understood the term as identifying a type of product rather than a brand, the survey was not conclusive, and the jury was entitled to weigh it against the remaining evidence supporting trademark significance.

Turning to infringement, the Eleventh Circuit addressed for the first time whether purchasing another party’s trademark as an online advertising keyword can itself constitute infringement. The Court concluded that it cannot in circumstances such as those presented here. Keyword bidding occurs “behind the scenes,” meaning consumers do not see the purchased keyword and instead see the resulting advertisement. Accordingly, likelihood of confusion depends on what the consumer sees in the advertisement, not on the invisible mechanism that caused the advertisement to appear.

The result was different where NOCO visibly used Deltona’s marks. NOCO used “battery tender” and similar language in the text of advertisements, including advertisements describing NOCO products as battery tenders. The Eleventh Circuit found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that these uses were likely to [...]

Continue Reading

Book of wisdom has limits: Can’t impute knowledge of later-arising facts to hypothetical negotiation

by Ashley K. Justice | Jul 30, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part a US Court of Federal Claims damages award, finding that the court erred in applying the book of wisdom in its damages analysis and assessing noncompensatory damages against the government. 4DD Holdings, LLC, et al. v. United States, Case No. 2024-1996 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026) (Hughes, Prost, Stark, JJ.)

4DD licensed TETRA software to the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Veterans Affairs to improve interoperability among existing military healthcare databases. Under the license, the government was permitted to make only a single backup copy of TETRA. 4DD later discovered that the government had made thousands of unauthorized copies of the software and sued for copyright infringement. During discovery, 4DD learned that the government had deleted TETRA copies from its development and test center and had destroyed evidence related to those copies. 4DD moved for sanctions.

The Court of Federal Claims imposed about $1.1 million in sanctions, found that the government had exceeded the scope of the licenses by hundreds of thousands of Federator cores and Studio seats, and awarded about $12.7 million in damages based on a hypothetical negotiation rather than the parties’ license agreement. In assessing the parties’ bargaining positions, the claims court relied in part on the fact that TETRA was never implemented, had no established profitability, and faced competition from a less expensive software product. 4DD appealed.

4DD argued that the claims court should have calculated damages using the royalty rates established in the parties’ license agreement, which it contended would have resulted in an award amount between $3 billion and $5 billion. The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which provides for “reasonable and entire compensation,” does not require a particular methodology for calculating copyright damages. Although a reasonable royalty may be based on an established royalty rate, it may also be determined through a hypothetical negotiation. The Court explained that the relevance of prior license agreements depends on the extent to which they are economically comparable to the infringing use. Because the government’s licensed use differed materially from the scope of its infringing use, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claims court did not abuse its discretion in determining damages through a hypothetical negotiation rather than by simply applying the parties’ license rates.

4DD also argued that the claims court misapplied the book of wisdom doctrine by imputing to the government (at the time of the hypothetical negotiation) knowledge of its later decision to abandon the TETRA project. The Federal Circuit agreed. The Court explained that although later-occurring facts may be considered to reduce uncertainty and illuminate the value that existed at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, they may not be used to impute knowledge of unforeseeable future events that affect the value of the license. Here, the court’s claims improperly relied on the government’s subsequent change in leadership and resulting decision to discontinue the project before TETRA was implemented to diminish 4DD’s bargaining [...]

Continue Reading

A $40 million jury instruction error sends trade secret dispute back to trial

by Jodi Benassi | Jul 23, 2026 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a jury damages award, a permanent injunction, and an attorneys’ fee award in a trade secret misappropriation case, finding that the district court improperly instructed the jury on which party bore the burden of proving whether the asserted trade secrets were “readily ascertainable through proper means.” Comet Technologies USA, Inc. et al. v. XP Power, LLC, Case Nos. 23-15601; 25-15709; 25-745 (9th Cir. July 14, 2026) (Hamilton, Nelson, Bumatay, JJ.) (Bumatay, dissenting)

Comet Technologies, a Swiss-based leader in x-ray and radio-frequency products, sued US-based competitor XP Power after three former Comet engineers left to join XP, allegedly bringing thousands of confidential documents relating to Comet’s radio-frequency power technologies, product designs, and research and development. Comet asserted claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).

Before trial, Comet narrowed its case to five alleged trade secrets and voluntarily dismissed its CUTSA claims, leaving only its DTSA claims. The parties addressed the effect of that dismissal on the jury instructions, with XP requesting that the burden of proving lack of ready ascertainability be shifted to Comet to conform to the DTSA while Comet argued that the instruction should be removed entirely. The district court rejected both requests without an on-the-record explanation and left in Instruction 20, which told the jury that XP was not liable for misappropriation if XP proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged trade secrets were readily ascertainable by proper means, meaning they could be lawfully “obtained, discovered, developed, reverse-engineered, or compiled without significant difficulty, effort, or expense.”

The jury found that XP misappropriated three of the five trade secrets and awarded Comet $20 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in exemplary damages. The district court also entered a permanent injunction and awarded more than $17 million in attorneys’ fees. XP appealed.

Erroneous jury instruction: “Readily ascertainable by proper means”

XP argued that the district court improperly instructed the jury that XP bore the burden of proving that Comet’s alleged trade secrets were “readily ascertainable by proper means.” Comet argued that XP invited the instructional error by requesting that the challenged instruction be given to the jury and, alternatively, that any error was harmless because the instructions were accurate as a whole, they correctly stated the law, and the evidence overwhelmingly established that Comet’s trade secrets were not readily ascertainable through proper means.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with XP, explaining that under the DTSA, lack of ready ascertainability is an element of Comet’s DTSA claim – not an affirmative defense – and, therefore, Comet bore the burden of proof. The Court rejected Comet’s invited-error argument, finding that XP timely objected after Comet dismissed its CUTSA claims and correctly argued that, under the DTSA, Comet – not XP – bore the burden of proving that the alleged trade secrets were not readily ascertainable through proper means.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Comet’s harmless-error argument. The Court explained that [...]

Continue Reading

A costly discovery misstep: Untimely damages evidence excluded

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | Jun 18, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s exclusion of damages evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and the resulting grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff on all claims. Deque Sys. Inc. v. BrowserStack, Inc., Case No. 25-1534 (4th Cir. June 5, 2026) (Agee, Traxler, Floyd, JJ.)

Deque Systems develops software that helps businesses make websites accessible to users who have visual and hearing impairments. Deque sued competitor BrowserStack for copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, alleging that BrowserStack reverse-engineered Deque’s software to develop a competing product and falsely advertised it as “5x faster” than Deque’s flagship offering.

Under the district court’s scheduling order, initial disclosures were due on June 7, 2024; expert disclosures were due on August 9, 2024; and fact discovery closed on October 11, 2024. Although Deque timely served its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, it failed to provide a computation of damages as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). When BrowserStack later served an interrogatory seeking the categories and calculations of Deque’s claimed damages, Deque again declined to provide a damages computation, stating only that it intended to seek all available damages and that its calculations remained incomplete.

Deque also failed to serve a damages expert report by the August 2024 expert disclosure deadline. After retaining new counsel, Deque disclosed a $30 million damages calculation on October 8, 2024, just three days before the close of discovery. BrowserStack moved to exclude the damages evidence and sought summary judgment.

The district court excluded Deque’s damages evidence under Rule 37(c)(1), finding that Deque failed to comply with Rule 26’s disclosure requirements. Because Deque could no longer prove damages and failed to establish entitlement to injunctive relief, the district court granted summary judgment in BrowserStack’s favor on all claims. Deque appealed.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to Rule 26’s disclosure requirements by prohibiting a party from using information that was not properly disclosed during discovery. The Court found that Deque had “indisputably failed to comply” with Rule 26(a)’s damages disclosure requirements by failing to provide a damages computation in its initial disclosures, expert disclosures, or interrogatory responses. The Court rejected Deque’s argument that its disclosure of damages in a rebuttal expert report three days before the close of discovery constituted a timely disclosure.

Turning to the propriety of the sanction, the Fourth Circuit applied the five-factor test set forth in its 2003 Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. decision:

Surprise to the opposing party
Ability to cure the surprise
Disruption of trial
Importance of the evidence
Explanation for the nondisclosure

The Fourth Circuit concluded that all five factors favored exclusion. BrowserStack was plainly surprised by Deque’s $30 million damages claim, which was disclosed only days before discovery closed. Curing that surprise would have required reopening discovery and significantly delaying the proceedings. Although the damages evidence was important, Deque failed to offer any meaningful justification for its repeated failure [...]

Continue Reading

Trade secret owner may pursue unjust enrichment damages despite licensing history

by Amol Parikh | Jun 4, 2026 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a district court’s post-trial rulings in a trade secret and contract dispute, finding that a trade secret plaintiff may pursue unjust enrichment damages under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) even where the parties have a prior licensing relationship. The Court also reinstated the jury’s breach-of-contract damages award and rejected the defendant’s attempt to impose a heightened knowledge requirement for combination trade secrets. Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 24-1140 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2026) (Moore, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Ford licensed Versata’s automotive configuration software under a Master Subscription and Services Agreement. When the agreement was about to expire, the parties failed to agree on renewal terms, and Ford released its own software, which it had developed while still licensing Versata’s software. Versata alleged that Ford misappropriated several combination trade secrets embodied in Versata’s software and breached the parties’ agreement. A jury found Ford liable for misappropriating three trade secrets and for breach of contract, awarding more than $22 million in trade secret damages and $82.26 million in contract damages.

Before trial, the district court had limited Versata to a reasonable royalty theory based on the parties’ licensing history and had excluded damages models that measured the value Ford allegedly derived from using the trade secrets. After trial, the district court reduced the trade secret damages award to $0 and the contract award to $3. Versata appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court had legally erred by categorically precluding unjust enrichment damages. The Court explained that the plain language of both the DTSA and the MUTSA permits recovery of unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not accounted for in actual loss. While prior licensing history may be relevant to damages, it does not foreclose unjust enrichment as a matter of law. The Court therefore vacated the zeroed-out trade secret damages judgment and remanded for a new damages trial, instructing the district court to reconsider the reasonable royalty models it had previously excluded because they were not based solely on licensing history.

On the contract award, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and reinstated the jury’s $82 million award. Applying Michigan law, the Court concluded that Versata had given the jury a reasonably certain damages path in the form of three annual license figures ($17 million, $14.95 million, and $10.95 million) multiplied by seven and a half years. The jury’s $82.26 million award equated to about $10.97 million per year, which fell within the range supported by the evidence and did not shock the conscience.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed liability for trade secret misappropriation. Ford argued that Versata had to show that Ford knew the specific elements of each combination trade secret at the time of use or disclosure. The Court rejected that proposed heightened requirement, concluding that neither the DTSA nor the MUTSA [...]

Continue Reading

Lost in the constellation: Result-oriented claims miss the mark under § 101

by Keval Amin | May 7, 2026 | Patents

Addressing issues related to patent eligibility, infringement, and damages, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, finding that certain result-oriented claims were directed to an abstract idea, lacked an inventive concept, and were therefore not patent eligible. Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (Lourie, Stoll, Oetken, JJ.)

Constellation sued LG for infringing its patents directed to communication systems employing non-uniform constellations, which are signal configurations designed to improve data transmission capacity compared to conventional uniform constellations. The accused products were LG televisions compliant with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard.

Constellation successfully moved for summary judgment in its favor on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At trial, Constellation asserted nine claims across four patents, which the parties grouped into two categories: “optimization claims,” which recited constellations optimized for capacity, and “constellation claims,” which recited specific non-uniform constellation configurations. A jury found willful infringement and awarded damages. The district court denied LG’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement and no damages. LG appealed.

On the patent eligibility issue, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step Alice framework and vacated the district court’s ruling as to the optimization claims. At step one, the Court found those claims directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court emphasized that the claims were written in a result-oriented manner, reciting a constellation “optimized” for capacity without specifying how that optimization was achieved. Although the claims did not cover every possible optimization technique, they were broad enough to encompass all ways of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court rejected Constellation’s reliance on technical details in the specification and reiterated that the § 101 inquiry focuses on the claim language, not unclaimed implementation details. At step two, the Court found no inventive concept, explaining that Constellation’s alleged innovation was the abstract idea itself and that arguments based on novelty or nonobviousness do not satisfy § 101.

In contrast, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s eligibility determination for the constellation claims. The Court explained that representative claims recited specific, concrete configurations (such as unequally spaced constellation points, distinct labeling, and overlapping point locations) amounting to a particular technological solution to a defined problem. Because those claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the Court did not proceed to step two.

On infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of JMOL. The Court clarified that a patentee may rely on industry standard compliance to prove some claim limitations while using product-specific evidence for others, as long as the standard is sufficiently specific and either mandatory or shown to be implemented in the accused products. Applying that framework, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

As for damages, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of LG’s JMOL motion and its challenge to the admissibility of Constellation’s damages expert. The Court [...]

Continue Reading

Patent disclosure erases trade secret protection

by Hannah Hurley | Apr 30, 2026 | Patents, Trade Secrets

Addressing the boundary between patent disclosures and trade secret protection, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s findings of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and improper inventorship, concluding that the asserted “trade secrets” were generally known and therefore not protectable under California law. The Court affirmed, however, a $1 million statutory damages award for trademark counterfeiting. International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, Case Nos. 25 1580; 1605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2026) (Dyk, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

International Medical Devices, Menova International, and Dr. James Elist (collectively, the plaintiffs) manufacture and sell the Penuma® cosmetic penile implant. The plaintiffs sued Dr. Robert Cornell and associated individuals and entities after Cornell attended a Penuma® surgical training session under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and later helped develop a competing implant. The plaintiffs asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of the NDA, trademark counterfeiting based on unauthorized use of the Penuma® mark, and invalidity of two cosmetic implant patents for failure to name Elist as an inventor.

A jury found for the plaintiffs on all claims. After a bench trial on remedies, the district court awarded more than $17 million in trade secret and exemplary damages, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded $1 million in statutory damages for counterfeiting. Cornell appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the trade secret verdict in its entirety, concluding that none of the asserted trade secrets were protectable under California law. The Court concluded that the alleged technical trade secrets were disclosed in publicly available patents and thus were “generally known” as a matter of law.

In doing so, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the long-standing principle that “that which is disclosed in a patent cannot be a trade secret.” Once information enters the public domain through patent disclosures, it cannot later be reclaimed as confidential business information through trade secret law.

The plaintiffs’ remaining alleged trade secret (a list of surgical instruments) fared no better. The Federal Circuit found that the list had been emailed to the defendants without any confidentiality designation or obligation, defeating any claim that reasonable measures were taken to maintain its secrecy.

Because the plaintiffs failed to identify any confidential information beyond the alleged trade secrets, the Federal Circuit also reversed the breach of contract verdict. The NDA expressly excluded information that was “generally available to the public,” and the Court found that an NDA cannot transform public domain information into protected confidential material.

The Federal Circuit reached a different conclusion on trademark counterfeiting, however, and affirmed the jury’s finding and the $1 million statutory damages award. The Court explained that the evidence showed that Cornell had advertised and offered Penuma® implants without authorization. Cornell argued that the Penuma® mark was registered only for goods, not services, and therefore could not support a counterfeiting claim tied to surgical procedures. The Court rejected that argument, concluding there was sufficient evidence that Cornell offered the Penuma® implant itself as a good, not merely a medical service.

Finally, the Federal Circuit [...]

Continue Reading

Not so fast, Daubert: Expert report OK after all

by Dexter Hamilton | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s exclusion of the plaintiff’s damages expert, finding that a proffered royalty base tied to unaccused products may be permissible when supported by a causal connection to the accused technology. The Federal Circuit vacated the resulting orders denying discovery and granting summary judgment for lack of a remedy. Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 24-2296 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) (Moore, Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

Exafer sued Microsoft for patent infringement based on features of Microsoft’s Azure platform. After Exafer served its expert reports, Microsoft filed a Daubert motion, and the district court excluded Exafer’s damages expert because she used unaccused virtual machines as the royalty base. Exafer moved to reopen fact and expert discovery to present an alternative theory, which the district court denied. The district court subsequently granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment based on the absence of a remedy. Exafer appealed all three orders.

Exafer argued that the district court erred in excluding its damages theory, which relied on Microsoft’s virtual machine pricing rate to estimate the value Microsoft placed on the accused features. Exafer contended that the district court misapplied the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision in Enplas Display Device v. Seoul Semiconductor by effectively creating a categorical bar against considering noninfringing activities in a reasonable royalty analysis.

The Federal Circuit agreed, explaining that in Enplas the unaccused products had no causal connection to the accused infringing products. Here, by contrast, the Court found such a connection: Microsoft’s own documents showed that Exafer’s royalty base was tied to a causal connection between the accused Azure features and the operation of virtual machines. The Court concluded that Exafer’s damages expert valued the accused features based on the incremental virtual machines Microsoft could host because of those efficiency gains.

The Federal Circuit rejected Microsoft’s argument that Enplas categorically precluded applying a royalty rate to sales of unaccused products to prevent a patent owner from “expanding its patent monopoly to unpatented products.” The Court explained that the analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis to determine how the parties would value the accused technology in the hypothetical negotiation. As an example, the Court noted that claims directed to methods of manufacture commonly use the unaccused product produced by the claimed method as the royalty base.

Tree-mendous award: Damages expert royalty opinions are lit

by Jodi Benassi | Mar 5, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a damages verdict amounting to tens of millions of dollars. The Court found that the patentee’s damages expert correctly apportioned value to the patented feature and rejected challenges to her methodology. Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Ltd., Case No. 24-2118 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2026) (Moore, Stark, Oetken, JJ.)

Willis sued Polygroup for infringing its patent related to pre-lit artificial trees with decorative lighting. In response, Polygroup filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging the asserted claims. Following extensive IPR proceedings, only a dependent claim that required coaxial trunk connectors remained for trial.

A jury found the claim infringed and not obvious, and awarded about $42.5 million in damages, equating to a $4-per-tree royalty. Polygroup moved for judgment as a matter of law of obviousness or, alternatively, for a new trial on damages. The district court denied both motions. Polygroup appealed.

Effect of prior IPR ruling

Polygroup argued that because the independent claim from which the asserted claim depended was held unpatentable, damages should be limited to only the incremental value of the coaxial connectors recited in the asserted dependent claim. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, explaining that the IPR applied the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, while the district court construed the independent claim under the Phillips standard. Under the district court’s construction, the independent claim required forming simultaneous mechanical and electrical connections regardless of rotational orientation, a feature that was not required under the IPR construction. Because the independent claim had not been held unpatentable under the district court’s construction, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the IPR ruling did not preclude Willis from relying on that one-step functionality in calculating the value attributable to the coaxial connectors recited in the dependent claim.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that what value was attributable to the claimed coaxial connectors was a question of fact for the jury. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the value included rotationally independent, simultaneous connection functionality, not merely the physical presence of coaxial connectors.

Rule 702 and damages methodology

Willis’ damages expert presented two independent apportionment analyses.

Under an income-based approach, the expert compared profit margins for Willis’ “One Plug” trees and Polygroup’s Quick Set trees against comparable noninfringing trees to derive a royalty range. Under a market-based approach, she analyzed several license agreements to establish a reasonable royalty range, which she combined with her income approach to arrive at an expanded reasonable royalty range. She then applied the Georgia-Pacific factors to select a $5-per-tree royalty, resulting in a jury award of $4 per tree.

Polygroup argued that the expert failed to adequately apportion value and relied on non-comparable licenses and improper averaging methods. The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing the district court’s gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 while reinforcing the distinction between admissibility and weight.

The Federal Circuit explained that reasonable royalty determinations inherently involve approximation and uncertainty. Where an expert’s methodology is grounded in record evidence, including internal sales [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS