Reasonable Royalty Damages for Indirect Infringement not Limited to "Specific Acts of Infringement"

Defendant's motion to limit damages for plaintiff's claims of indirect infringement to "specific acts of infringement that [plaintiff] proves at trial” was denied as premature. "The principle on which [defendant] relies is applicable to a claim of indirect infringement where the plaintiff seeks to establish damages under a 'lost profits' theory. See Standard Haven Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding where plaintiff sought to establish 'lost profits' as remedy for claim of indirect infringement, amount of lost profits could only be based on six of ten sales of accused device, because plaintiff did not establish remaining four sales resulted in act of direct infringement by purchaser). The principle, however, does not apply to a claim of indirect infringement where the plaintiff seeks to establish damages under a 'reasonable royalty' theory."

Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Vnus Medical Technologies v. biolitec, Inc. et al., 3-08-cv-03129 (CAND August 23, 2010, Order) (Chesney, J.)