In Exmark Manufacturing v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products, the CAFC held that the District Court erred by denying Briggs’ motion for a new damages trial after a jury awarded damages based on a reasonable royalty applied to the entire infringing product. The CAFC found that using sales of the entire product as the royalty base was appropriate despite the fact that the inventive element of the claim was a component of that product, but concluded that Exmark’s expert’s royalty rate was based on a recitation of factors with little explanation of how her conclusion was tied to the facts of the case.
To read an overview and analysis of the case, click the link below.
China refines how to determine patent damages
China’s patent law was promulgated in 1984 and amended three times prior to 2020 (in 1992, 2000, and 2008). On October 17, 2020, the National People’s Congress...