REBUTTAL: It's Not An Inappropriate Reasonable Royalty Rule

Law360, New York (August 21, 2015, 5:45 PM EDT) -- Michael J. Chapman

John C. Jarosz In their recent IP Law360 guest article titled "The Latest Inappropriate Reasonable Royalty Rule of Thumb,"[1] William Rooklidge and Andrew Brown discuss the decision in Good Technology Corporation v. MobileIron Inc.[2] to deny a motion to exclude damages testimony. The economist in that case had concluded that the reasonable royalty owed to the patent holder was equal to 100 percent of the (expected) incremental profits that the infringer earned on the smallest saleable patent practicing unit ("SSPPU"). The relevant language in the court's opinion provides:

As to whether [the patent holder's expert] puts forth adequate...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!


Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!