`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00111
`
`Judge Arthur J. Schwab
`
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`
`PLAINTIFF DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`MEMORANDUM RE: DAMAGES AND POST-VERDICT EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`At the Court’s invitation at the Preliminary Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff provides this
`
`concise memorandum addressing damages and post-verdict equitable relief.
`
`Defendants confuse two issues. First, whether a jury award may include damages for
`
`future use of patented technology (which it can); and second, what additional equitable relief a
`
`court should award in addition to the jury award.
`
`There is no dispute that, in this case, the proper measure of damages is a reasonable
`
`royalty. Doc. No. 277 at 2. That reasonable royalty can be a lump-sum payment for a fully paid-
`
`up license (as proposed by both experts in this case) for the lives of the patents. See, e.g., Powell
`
`v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1237-42 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming $15 million
`
`jury award based on lump-sum reasonable royalty for life of patent, based on a per unit
`
`valuation).
`
`Thus, a jury award may include compensation for future infringement. In addition,
`
`“[d]istrict courts have discretion to award damages for periods of infringement not considered by
`
`the jury.” Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 38 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(emphasis added). Before fashioning any post-verdict equitable relief, the district court may
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 319 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 2
`
`determine whether a jury award “include[s] a paid-up license for post-verdict conduct.” Id.; see
`
`also Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining
`
`that district courts assess whether a “verdict figure represented past infringement as well as
`
`ongoing infringement”); Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (reasonable royalty could “include both an up-front payment and an ongoing royalty
`
`payment,” such as an up-front “market entry fee” based upon future sales plus and ongoing
`
`royalty).
`
`In this case, the jury may properly consider and decide damages based on future
`
`infringement. Also, following the jury verdict, this Court may consider what additional equitable
`
`relief, if any, may be appropriate.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: April 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Gene Tabachnick
`Richard T. Ting
`
`PA I.D. No. 200438
`rting@beckthomas.com
`Gene A. Tabachnick
`PA I.D. No. 73032
`gtabachnick@beckthomas.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Clay P. Hughes
`PA I.D. No. 200033
`chughes@beckthomas.com
`
`Charles H. Dougherty, Jr.
`PA I.D. No. 83795
`cdougherty@beckthomas.com
`
`John C. Thomas III
`PA I.D. No. 85532
`jthomas@beckthomas.com
`
`Beck & Thomas, P.C.
`1575 McFarland Road
`Pittsburgh, PA 15216
`Phone: (412) 343-9700
`Fax: (412) 343-5787
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Drone Technologies, Inc.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
