Verdict Evidencing Impermissible Damages Calculation “To The Dollar” Warrants New Damages Trial

The court granted in part defendants' motion for new trial regarding damages for an accused product because the jury relied on a legally impermissible theory. "[I]t is apparent that the jury awarded 40% of [plaintiff's expert’s] calculation of [defendant's] profits for a wide range of products, and in some cases, added the same expert’s calculation for [plaintiff's] lost profits. Moreover, it is clear that for several products, the jury awarded exactly half of the reasonable royalty award proposed by [plaintiff's expert]. . . . [T]hese numbers are 'to the dollar;' it is thus quite apparent how the jury arrived at them. . . . As the Court instructed the jury, infringer's profits are not a legally permissible remedy for utility patent infringement. . . . [I]t is apparent that the jury failed to follow the Court’s instructions on the law, and awarded damages [for one product] based on a legally impermissible theory. This award cannot stand. . . . Accordingly, the Court hereby orders a new trial on damages for [that product]."

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et. al., 5-11-cv-01846 (CAND March 1, 2013, Order) (Koh, J.).