Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Eve-Usa, Inc.
Decision Date | 01 September 2017 |
Docket Number | 2015-1470 2015-1554 2015-1556. |
Citation | 870 F.3d 1298 (Mem) |
Parties | MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff–Cross–Appellant v. EVE–USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A.S., Formed Under the Laws of France, Synopsys, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants–Appellants |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Mark E. Miller , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, filed a response to the petition for plaintiff-cross-appellant. Also represented by Anne E. Huffsmith , Luann Loraine Simmons .
E. Joshua Rosenkranz , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Daniel A. Rubens , Andrew D. Silverman ; Robert M. Loeb , Eric Shumsky , Washington, DC; Vicki L. Feeman , Travis Jensen , Scott T. Lonardo , Menlo Park, CA; William H. Wright , Los Angeles, CA; Indra Neel Chatterjee , Goodwin Procter LLP, Menlo Park, CA.
Eric E. Bensen , Garden City, NY, as amicus curiae.
Phillip R. Malone , Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, for amici curiae Public Knowledge and Jeremy W. Bock, et al. Also represented by Jeffrey Theodore Pearlman .
Before Prost, Chief Judge, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Appellants EVE–USA, Inc., Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A.S., and Synopsys, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by the cross-appellant Mentor Graphics Corporation. Two motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs were also filed and granted by the court.
The petition, response, and briefs of amici curiae were referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.
The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
The mandate of the court will be issued on September 8, 2017.
Because the panel's decision is consistent with longstanding patent law damages principles,1 I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc.
We have consistently held that where an infringing product is a multi-component product with patented and unpatented components, apportionment is required. See VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (); Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Org. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 809 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015) () (quoting Ericsson, Inc. v. D–Link Sys., Inc. , 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ); Ericsson , 773 F.3d at 1226 (). The apportionment requirement dates back to Garretson v. Clark , 111 U.S. 120, 4 S.Ct. 291, 28 L.Ed. 371 (1884), where the Supreme Court held that "[t]he patentee ... must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant's profits and the patentee's damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features." Garretson , 111 U.S. at 121, 4 S.Ct. 291.
Garretson , however, also holds that damages for patent infringement may be based on the value of the entire infringing product if the patentee can show that "the entire value of the whole machine ... is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature." Id . In other words, "[i]f it can be shown that the patented feature drives the demand for an entire multi-component product, a patentee may be awarded damages as a percentage of revenues or profits attributable to the entire product." LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc. , 694 F.3d 51, 67 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In this case, on the question of lost profits, the jury was instructed to consider the Panduit factors, including "demand for the patented product" (factor one) and an "absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes" (factor two). See Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. , 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978). As the panel recognized, these two factors together "consider[ ] demand for the patented product as a whole" and "consider [ ] demand for particular limitations or features of the claimed invention." Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE–USA, Inc. , 851 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. , 567 F.3d 1314, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ). As the panel noted, the jury found that "Intel would not have purchased the [infringing] Synopsys emulator system without the two patented features and that there were no other alternatives available." Id. at 1287. This undisputed fact finding established that Mentor proved that the patented features were what imbued the combined features that made up the emulator with marketable value. Under these circumstances, further apportionment is unnecessary. See Ericsson , 773 F.3d at 1227 () (quoting LaserDynamics , 694 F.3d at 67 ); VirnetX , 767 F.3d at 1326. Whether one views this in terms of what imbues value to the ultimate combination of features or what is a driver of demand for those combined features, the result is the same: the apportionment required by Garretson is satisfied.
In my view, the dissent mischaracterizes the panel's holding in this case, suggesting the panel held that in all cases where lost profits are awarded, apportionment is not required. Dissent Op. 1. To the contrary, the panel made clear that apportionment is typically necessary in both reasonable royalty and lost profits analyses. See Mentor Graphics , 851 F.3d at 1287–88. Under the narrow facts of this case, however, the panel determined that because the Panduit factors are satisfied, the damages award properly accounted for apportionment. I do not read the panel's decision to apply broadly to all lost profits analyses.
Accordingly, based on the jury's undisputed fact findings on the Panduit factors in this case, I agree with the panel that Mentor properly accounted for apportionment of lost profits between the patented and unpatented features of the infringing emulator system. For this reason, I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc.
I respectfully dissent from the court's decision to not rehear this case en banc. In my view, the panel decision here improperly holds that when lost profits are awarded for patent infringement, there is no requirement for apportionment between patented and unpatented features, contrary to longstanding Supreme Court authority.
For over a century, it has been established by both the decisions of the Supreme Court and this court that awards of lost profits or reasonable royalties for patent infringement must be apportioned between patented and unpatented features. See, e.g. , Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minn. Moline Plow Co. , 235 U.S. 641, 646–48, 35 S.Ct. 221, 59 L.Ed. 398 (1915) ; Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. , 114 U.S. 439, 443–44, 5 S.Ct. 945, 29 L.Ed. 177 (1885) ; Blake v. Robertson , 94 U.S. 728, 733–34, 24 L.Ed. 245 (1876) ; Garretson v. Clark , 111 U.S. 120, 121, 4 S.Ct. 291, 28 L.Ed. 371 (1884) ; Seymour v. McCormick , 57 U.S. (16 How.) 480, 489–90, 14 L.Ed. 1024 (1853) ; Ericsson, Inc. v. D–Link Sys., Inc. , 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Indeed, the panel opinion acknowledges that "apportionment is ... necessary in both reasonable royalty and lost profits analysis." Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE–USA, Inc. , 851 F.3d 1275. 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2017). At the same time, the case law is also clear that any award of lost profits is not appropriate unless the patentee establishes that it would have sold the item but for the infringement. See, e.g. , Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize–Prods. Co. , 185 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). This but-for requirement is encapsulated in the first and second Panduit factors, which are "demand for the patented product" and the "absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes," i.e. , alternatives that could have prevented the patentee from itself making the sale.1
The panel here holds that applying the first and second Panduit factors results in the required apportionment. See Mentor , 851 F.3d at 1285 (). But calling the first and second Panduit factors apportionment "ignore[s] the ancient wisdom that calling a thing by a name does not make it so." City of Madison, Joint Sch. Dist. No. 8 v. Wis. Emp. Relations Comm. , 429 U.S. 167, 174, 97 S.Ct. 421, 50 L.Ed.2d 376 (1976). In my view, the panel opinion simply does not apportion—even though it purportedly recognizes apportionment's importance.
The panel cites cases from the Supreme Court and other circuits holding that but-for causation is necessary both for lost profits generally and for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc.
...de Quijas v. Shearson , 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989) ; Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 870 F.3d 1298, 1305-06, 2017 WL 3806141, at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("We are bound by [Supreme Court] precedent."); United States v. Sterling , 724 F.3d 482, 502 (4th Cir......
-
In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.
...the patent holder have made (what would his profits have been) if the infringer had not infringed."), reh'g en banc denied , 870 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. dismissed , No. 17-804, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 44, 201 L.Ed.2d 1122, 2018 WL 3978434 (U.S. Aug. 17, 2018). There is "no partic......
-
Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.
...Report ¶¶ 185-196.162 Riley Report ¶ 183.163 Riley Report ¶¶ 182-196.164 See Dkt. No. 252-20 at 112.165 Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 870 F.3d 1298, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Stoll, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc ) (collecting cases).166 LaserDynamics, Inc. , 694 F.3d......
-
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.
...product, and no more." Ericsson, Inc. v. D–Link Sys., Inc. , 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; see also Mentor Graphics v. EVE–USA , 870 F.3d 1298, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (order denying rehearing en banc) ("[W]here an infringing product is a multi-component product with patented and unp......
-
Chapter §20.04 Damages for Past Infringements
...§20.04[B][1][a] ("The Panduit Analysis").[481] 851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Moore, J.).[482] Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 870 F.3d 1298, 1300 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2017) (Dyk, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).[483] Mentor, 851 F.3d at 1280.[484] Mentor, 851 F.3d at ......
-
I'm Not a Patent Lawyer, I'm a Problem Solver
...consistently described the body as separate and distinct from other drill components. Damages Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 870 F.3d 1298, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc filed by......
-
Held Hostage: Why Cyber Attacks Against Film and Media Industries Are on the Rise
...consistently described the body as separate and distinct from other drill components. Damages Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 870 F.3d 1298, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc filed by......
-
The Case for Empathetic Drafting
...consistently described the body as separate and distinct from other drill components. Damages Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 870 F.3d 1298, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc filed by......