$532.9 Million Jury Verdict Set Aside Due to Correct, but Inapplicable, Jury Instruction on Entire Market Value Rule

The court set aside the jury's $532.9 million verdict and ordered a new trial on damages because the jury received an instruction on the entire market value rule that was inapplicable inasmuch as plaintiff's damages case was based on apportionment. "At trial in this case and at [defendant's] request, the Court instructed the jury on the substantive legal rule known as the entire market value rule. . . . [Plaintiff's] damages model — with a degree of oversimplification — apportions familiar inputs to the royalty base and rate calculations by using the results of two consumer surveys . . . . In other words, through the use of survey questions, [plaintiff] attempted to apportion for the jury 'the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the end product.' . . . [T]he confusion created by the [entire market value instruction] warrants a new trial on damages in this case. The Court is persuaded, in the clarity of post-trial hindsight, that [its jury] instruction may have created a skewed damages horizon for the jury. . . . The instruction was not an incorrect statement of law. However, it was inapplicable to the facts of this case."

Smartflash LLC et al v. Apple Inc. et al, 6-13-cv-00447 (TXED July 7, 2015, Order) (Gilstrap, J.)