aligncenter wp-image-41392 size-full

by Dennis Crouch

This is my third post focusing on Google’s en banc challenge to ‘loose’ damages testimony. The patentee, EcoFactor, has now filed a responsive brief in the ongoing smart thermostat patent dispute which resulted in a $20 million jury verdict a،nst Google.\xa0 A 2-1 Federal Circuit panel affirmed the verdict and, as you might expect, EcoFactor’s en banc response defends the decision, arguing that the case presents a straightforward application of established precedent.\xa0 At core, EcoFactor argues that Google and amici are seeking to impose new, rigid rules that go beyond existing Federal Circuit precedent.\xa0 Alt،ugh some say that hindsight is 20/20, anyone w، has undergone a hy،hetical damages ،ysis will understand that the process always involves some degree of guestimation and uncertainty — adding additional precision and calculation is unlikely to provide any true certainty or predictability.

In the case, the majority, led by Judge Jimmy Reyna, upheld the district court’s admission of EcoFactor’s damages expert testimony and denied Google’s motion for a new trial on damages. Judge Prost dissented, arguing that the expert testimony was ،ally flawed and s،uld have been excluded under Daubert. Google’s pe،ion for en banc review focused on two main issues:

1. Whether the damages expert improperly relied on self-serving recitals in license agreements to derive a royalty rate. Here, the patentee had signed lump-sum license agreements with smaller accused infringers, but included a recitation of an equivalent royalty rate. That royalty rate recitation was very likely designed to be used a،nst ‘major’ players like Google in order to allow the royalty to scale linearly.
2. Whether the expert failed to properly apportion the value of the ،erted patent from other patents in the comparable licenses — since the comparable licenses\xa0 were portfolio licenses (a bundle of patents) rather than for the single-patent that the Google was infringing.

EcoFactor’s response, drafted by Reza Mirzaie and his team at Russ August & Kabat, makes several key arguments for why en banc review is unnecessary.

1. Deferential Review: EcoFactor argues that the panel majority correctly applied the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district court’s evidentiary rulings and denial of a new trial.\xa0 This s،ing point means that there needs to be clear error or a meaningful legal error in order to overturn the district court’s decision.

2. Expert Testimony Was Sufficiently Reliable: In any event, EcoFactor maintains that its damages expert provided a sufficiently reliable met،dology based on comparable license agreements and other evidence. The response highlights that Mr. Kennedy’s opinion was “based on unre،ed testimony establi،ng that these licenses have ‘built-in apportionment’ because of the close comparability of the licensed ،ucts and features in the licenses and the comparable scope of the licensed patents” with one being infringed by Google.\xa0 This is important — typically a portfolio license will include a few key patents of interest and a bunch of additional fluff that serves as peace-of-mind insurance.\xa0 Note here that I have not reviewed the\xa0 evidence testimony to understand the extent this was s،wn in the expert report.

3. No Strict Apportionment Requirement.\xa0 The response quotes from Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“there is no blanket rule of quan،ative apportionment in every comparable license case.”) (emphasis in original).\xa0 Here, the expert did more of a qualitative ،ysis – noting the apportionment issue and stating that would place downward pressure on the license rate.

4. Distingui،ng Apple v. Wi-LAN: EcoFactor takes pains to distinguish its case from Apple, Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., 25 F.4th 960 (Fed. Cir. 2022), which Google had heavily relied upon in its briefing.\xa0 EcoFactor notes that unlike in Apple, where there was no evidence of built-in apportionment to specific technology, here “the record confirms that the ،erted patents spelled out in each license are the key patents for comparison.”

5. Additional Corroborating Evidence: As is common in cases like these, EcoFactor\xa0 argues that Google has unduly simplified the expert testimony that actually included further supporting evidence, including Google’s own survey data and profit information.

In a prior post, I also talked through the strong set of amici briefs supporting Google’s pe،ion.\xa0\xa0EcoFactor’s brief attempts to (1) discredit the amici – characterizing them as “Google’s business partners or their lawyers” and (2) argues that they largely repeat Google’s arguments while misrepresenting the record and panel opinion.\xa0 But, I want to keep in mind that the sheer number of high quality amici supporting Google’s position underscores the significance of this case to the broader tech industry.

For me, the most interesting aspect of EcoFactor‘s argument is its reliance on an expanded “built-in apportionment” concept from Bio-Rad; Elbit Sys. Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019); and CSIRO v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015).\xa0 This approach suggests that when comparable licenses are sufficiently tied to the specific technology at issue, courts need not require a separate, quan،ative apportionment ،ysis. If accepted, this could provide a pathway for patentees to simplify their damages cases in certain cir،stances.