Click here to view the case

Summary: The district court upheld the jury verdict that was based on an application of the entire market value rule. According to the Court, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's use of the entire value of the accused bandage as the royalty base. According to the Court, the plaintiff presented evidence showing that the patented p-GlcNAc component in the product drove sales of the product, and the defendant did not effectively undermine this evidence, and thus the jury's use of the entire product as the royalty base was appropriate.

Additionally, the district court upheld a royalty rate of 34%, which was allegedly higher than the defendant's profit margin, citing to Monsanto v. Ralph for the proposition that "the law does not require that an infringer be permitted to make a profit."