Prior 3% License Did Not Render Jury’s 6% Rate Excessive

The court denied defendant's motion for a new trial on damages and rejected defendant's argument that the jury's finding of a 6% reasonable royalty was excessive in light of plaintiff's license to a third party with a rate of 3%. "The jury was instructed that it was part of its responsibility to make a determination as to what royalty would have resulted from a hypothetical negotiation between the parties. . . . [T]he jury properly could have considered several license agreements in addition to the [3%] agreement, and credited certain expert testimony focusing on certain license agreements over others, depending on their characteristics and contexts. . . . [T]he jury was entitled to credit [plaintiffs' expert's] opinion about the rising values of the patented technology, and to consider the [3%] license agreement as only one among several relevant agreements in arriving at its six percent royalty rate."

Enzo Biochem, Inc., et. al. v. Applera Corp., et. al., 3-04-cv-00929 (CTD August 1, 2013, Order) (Arterton, J.).