Patent damages question: Lets say a patent has a broad independent claim and a narrower dependent claim. Should the damages calculation be any different for the following three cases where: (1) the broad claim is found to be infringed & valid; (2) the narrow claim is found to be infringed & valid; or (3) both claims are found to be valid & infringed? Further, what if the claims were found in two separate patents? Finally, what additional information would be helpful in answering this question?
Subscribe
19,000+ individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.
Recent Posts
- Hitler on Patent Trolls
- Supreme Court Adds Antitrust Consideration to Patent Settlements.
- Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- Twenty Thoughts on the Importance of Myriad
- Bosch v. Pylon: 1292(c)(2) CAFC Jurisdiction
- Myriad: The PTO's Preliminary Guidance
- Myriad: Justice Scalia's Concurrence
- Myriad: Isolated DNA out, cDNA in
- Monsanto Wins Again in Federal Circuit: Organic Farmers Have No Standing to Challenge Patent
- Fight Litigation Misconduct, But Not Through Hyperbole
- The European Unitary Patent System – 5 things Patent Attorneys need to know now
- Bits and Bytes by Dennis Crouch
- Patent Reform 2013: Adding Clarity and Transparency to the System
- Dey v. Sunovion
- Guest Post on Using the Antitrust Laws to Police Patent Privateering
- Congratulations to 2013 Mark T. Banner Award Recipients!
- Small Entity Patenting
- Recent Scholarship: Investing in America's Future by David Kappos
- Judge Mayer: Subject Matter Eligibility Must be Decided First Even if Not Raised by Either Party on Appeal
- What Is Happening In Vermont? Patent Law Reform From The Bottom Up
- Best Mode: Only Mostly Dead
- Patent Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 (S.1013)
- Sample Civil Procedure II Exam
- Motiva v. ITC and Nintendo
- Guest Post: Monopoly Without Apology
- Supreme Court to hear another Case Involving Licensees in Good Standing who Challenge Patent Rights
- Alexsam, Inc. v. Best Buy,
- After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0
- Supreme Court Looks More Closely at Reviewing Therasense
- Forrester v. Wheelabrator: No Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Tortious Interference Claims Involving Prospect of Claim Construction
Categories
- Academic Studies
- Accelerated Examination
- All Elements
- Amicus Brief
- Anticipation
- Articles and Publications
- Attorney Fees
- Bayh-Dole
- Best Mode
- Biotech
- Bits and Bytes
- Blogroll
- Book Review
- BPAI
- Business Developments
- CAFC
- Certificate of Correction
- Chemical
- Claim Construction
- Claim Drafting Tips
- Conference or CLE
- Contributory Infringement
- Copyright
- Current Affairs
- Damages
- Declaratory Judgment
- Design Patent
- Disclaimer
- Dissent
- District Court
- Doctrine of Equivalents
- Doctrine of Patent Misuse
- EFiling
- En Banc
- Enablement
- False Marking
- Fees
- First Sale / Exhaustion
- Gaming
- Graham Factors
- Guest Post
- Indefinite
- Inducement
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Interference
- Invalidity
- Inventors
- Inventorship
- ITC
- Jobs
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm Practice
- Law School
- Lear Doctrine
- License
- Local Rules
- Means Plus Function
- Medical Device
- Method Claims
- Motivation to Combine
- Obviousness
- On Sale
- Ownership
- Patent Applications
- Patent Cases 2004
- Patent Cases 2005
- Patent Cases 2006
- Patent Cases 2007
- Patent Cases 2008
- Patent Cases 2009
- Patent Cases 2010
- Patent Cases 2011
- Patent Cases 2012
- Patent Legislation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Q&A
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Petitions
- Pharma
- PHOSITA
- Post Grant Review
- Preissuance Submissions
- Printed Matter Doctrine
- Prior Art
- Priority Rights
- Procedure
- Provisional Patent Application
- PTAB
- Public Use
- Rantanen
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Revival
- Science
- Settlement
- Software
- Standing
- State Immunity
- statutory bar
- Statutory Construction
- Summary Judgment
- Supreme Court
- Survey
- Takings
- Teaching Away
- Television
- TipCast
- Tools
- Trade Secret
- Trademark
- Transnational
- USPTO News
- Vitiation
- Weblogs
Friends
- Patent Docs
- Patent Baristas
- Orange Book Blog
- Patent Prospectors
- IP Kat
- Prof Goldman
- David Donoghue
- Michael C. Smith
- SCOTUS Blog
- ELS
- Spicy IP
- The Patent Law Journal
- ABA blawgs
- Green Patents
- Delaware IP
- Inventive Step
- IP Spotlight
- Gray on Claims
- Patents4Life
- Bryan Beel
- Bill Vobach
- IP Watchdog
- Levin Crouch Patent Mediation Services
Recent Comments
- anon on Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- anon on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- anon on Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- anon on Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- LB on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- 6 on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- Ned Heller on Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- Ned Heller on Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- MM on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- MM on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- MM on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Hitler on Patent Trolls
- anon on Guest Post by Paul Cole: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision?
- MM on Hitler on Patent Trolls
Terms of Use & Disclaimer
- Terms of Use
- Patently-O on Facebook
Connect with Patently-O readers. -
-
