We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.


Refine your search

Content type


Firm name


300 results found


Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | USA | 27 Sep 2011

Is "the 25 percent rule" still alive after Uniloc?

Parties and courts had come to rely on the so-called "25 percent rule" as a way of calculating a reasonably royalty rate in patent infringement cases.


Holland & Knight LLP | USA | 11 May 2011

Patent damages 25 rule is dead

On January 4, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the so-called “25 percent rule of thumb” analysis long used by damages experts in patent cases to calculate a “reasonable royalty” is “fundamentally flawed.” Uniloc v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2011).


Fenwick & West LLP | USA | 5 May 2011

Uniloc v. Microsoft: Federal Circuit rules on reasonable royalty damages issues

On January 4, 2011, the Federal Circuit in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F. 3d 1292, made two significant rulings on recurring issues in the area of patent damages: (1) It eliminated the criticized 25 percent “rule of thumb” frequently used as a baseline for determining reasonable royalty damages, and (2) It clarified that evidence of entire market value calculations - where the plaintiff attempts to tie the reasonable royalty to the full value of a product containing the patented invention - will not be permitted in absence of clear economic justifications.


Chadbourne & Parke LLP | USA | 1 Apr 2011

US patent infringement damages: continuing the return to reason

In its Uniloc decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided much-needed clarification on the calculation of damages in patent infringement lawsuits.


Baker Botts LLP | USA | 29 Mar 2011

Raising the bar on proving damages - Uniloc vs. Microsoft

“A reasonable royalty is the predominant measure of damages in patent infringement cases.”


Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP | USA | 22 Mar 2011

Rejection of the 25 rule in the calculation of a reasonable royalty rate

Though the "25 Rule," which presumes that 25 percent of the operating profit from the sale of an infringing good is a reasonable royalty rate, has been frequently relied upon as a starting point in calculating patent infringement damages for more than 40 years, the Federal Circuit recently held that this rule of thumb "is a fundamentally flawed tool.


Vedder Price PC | USA | 15 Mar 2011

Reasonable royalty damages: the “25 percent rule” is dead!

The Federal Circuit has recently rejected the so-called "25 percent rule" long used by litigants and accepted by federal courts to establish a "reasonable royalty" as compensation for patent infringement under Section 284 of the Patent Act.


Latham & Watkins LLP | USA | 1 Mar 2011

An end to the rule of thumb: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp

Before the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., patentees often used the so-called 25 percent rule to approximate a reasonable royalty ratei.e., the royalty rate that an accused infringer would have paid to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation at the time infringement began.


Venable LLP | USA | 31 Jan 2011

Federal Circuit rejects use of the 25 percent "rule of thumb" in patent damages

On January 4, 2011, the Federal Circuit threw out the use of the "25 percent rule of thumb" in patent damage awards and also placed limitations on the "application of the entire market value rule."


Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | USA | 10 Jan 2011

25 percent rule for damages is now 100 percent dead; expert reports must now predicate damages on the specific circumstances of the case, not general, arbitrary theories

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last week that a damage expert's arbitrary use of what had become a commonplace starting point for royalty rates in patent cases, the so-called "25 percent rule," is a "fundamentally flawed tool" for determining a reasonable royalty and "is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Previous page 1 2 3 ...