In most cases, I see patent damages as inherently speculative. The law's hypothetical negotiation to reach a reasonable royalty is a counter-factual endeavor set so far apart from reality.
This case is important for the patent community as it seeks to tie-down damages theories to prevent large damage awards and enhance judicial discretion.
The court is welcoming amicus briefs without requiring consent or leave, indicating the case's significance in the ongoing discussion about patent damages.
The circularity in determining a hypothetical royalty complicates establishing an objective starting point for damages, as courts' awards are based on these royalties.
Collection
[
|
...
]