Background
A biomedical engineering firm and a medical device company asserted claims of patent infringement against one another. The patented technology at issue related to minimally disruptive spinal surgery devices and procedures.
Our Analysis
Intensity calculated lost profits and reasonable royalty damages stemming from alleged patent infringement. As part of its work, Intensity performed an analysis of economic factors informing on whether lost profits were an appropriate remedy for the respective patent holders, including demand for the patented product, absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives, and capacity to exploit demand.
As part its analysis of lost profits, Intensity defined the relevant market for the products at issue and determined sales that the patent holder would have made but for the alleged infringement. Intensity calculated usage of the asserted technology and a sales price that would have occurred but for the alleged infringement. Intensity calculated lost profits on lost sales and determined a reasonable royalty for the remaining units.
As part of its analysis of a reasonable royalty, Intensity conducted an evaluation of each of the 15 Georgia-Pacific factors relating to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patented technologies. Intensity evaluated a number of license agreements, licensing policies, commercial relationships, bargaining positions, profitability, contribution of the patented technology, convoyed sales, and other factors informing on the outcome of a hypothetical negotiation between the parties. Intensity calculated an economically appropriate royalty base and royalty rate to determine an appropriate reasonable royalty.