Log in
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Dynamic quotes 

MarketScreener Homepage  >  Equities  >  Nasdaq  >  Apple Inc.    AAPL


SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

Apple : District Court Excludes Damage Expert For Allocating Damages Equally Among Multiple Patents

03/06/2021 | 05:10am EDT

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Personalized Media Communications, LLC ("PMC"), moved to exclude the testimony of Apple's damages expert, Mr. Thomas. In rebuttal, Mr. Thomas estimated that PMC would be entitled to a lump-sum payment of $1 million per allegedly infringing patent.

PMC asserted that Mr. Thomas' damages calculation was improper because his calculation of the value added by the patents-in-suit to the functionality of Apple's FairPlay was flawed. As explained by the district court, PMC pointed to Mr. Thomas' calculation when he "divided the profitability of FairPlay by 53 (50 Apple DRM patents plus the three patents-in-suit)." They state Mr. Thomas' calculation "necessarily assumes that each of Apple's patents has in fact contributed separate and non­cumulative benefit[s] to FairPlay." PMC further states "[t]he Thomas Report contains no analysis of whether each (or even any) of Apple's DRM patents were in fact used by Apple in its FairPlay technology at the time the patents-in-suit were issued, the priority date of the Apple patents, or whether the Apple patents are valid."

To counter this argument, Apple argued that Mr. Thomas was merely correcting and rebutting PMC's damages expert's erroneous damages calculation. Apple argued the "Thomas alternative calculation merely points out that PMC has not sufficiently tied its damages theory to the facts of this case."

The district court agreed with PMC. "Mr. Thomas made an unreliable calculation of the value attributable to the patents-in-suit that was carried into his later calculations. Mr. Thomas disagreed with Mr. Dansky's assessment that the FairPlay functionality derives 100% of its value from the patents-in-suit. Mr. Thomas rebuts Mr. Dansky's calculation by re-calculating the percentage of value added by the patents-in-suit by "[a]ssuming equal value of the Apple DRM patents and the patents-in-suit . . . divid[ing] the three patents-in-suit by 53 (50 Apple DRM patents plus the three patents-in-suit.)" (emphasis added). Mr. Thomas' calculation is reminiscent of a royalty stacking calculation. However, Mr. Thomas' calculation diverges from royalty stacking significantly. Mr. Thomas is not sure if any of the fifty patents were being practiced by Apple at the time of the infringement. Furthermore, there [has] been no evidence cited in the report (nor has Apple referred to any in the briefing) that any of the fifty patents were being practiced by Apple at the time of infringement. Simply owning a patent does not mean that it is being practiced in a particular product. It cannot be assumed any one patent is being practiced without a more thorough investigation/analysis-much less fifty patents. Mr. Thomas' calculation is fatally flawed solely on that ground."

The district court explained further that even "assuming arguendo that each patent of the fifty Apple DRM patents were practiced in the FairPlay functionality at the time of infringement, Mr. Thomas cannot assume that each patent has equal value. The exercise of performing an apportionment analysis is to separate the specific value of the patents-in-suit using reliable known methods. VirnetX, Inc., 767 F.3d at 1327. It would be unscientific to make a conclusory assumption that each patent has equal value. Indeed, not all patents are created equal. An expert may conclude-by using evidentiary support- that the patents-in-suit holds the same value as Apple's other DRM patents, but Mr. Thomas cannot simply make this assumption. The expert must tie his or her analysis to the facts of the case. Id. at 1331-34. Mr. Thomas' assumptions cannot be made without any support. Merely stating a conclusory assumption not predicated on evidence is inadmissible."

Accordingly, the district court concluded that "Mr. Thomas' method of determining the value attributable to the patents-in-suit is unreliable."

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP (Feb. 19, 2021)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mr Stanley Gibson
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
E-mail: CJ3@JMBM.com
URL: www.jmbm.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

All news about APPLE INC.
12:15aAs Apple and Facebook Clash Over Ads, Mom-and-Pop Shops Fear They'll Be the V..
04/09Dow, S&P 500 Rally to Fresh Records--Update
04/09Tech Up As Investors Rotate Back Into Mega Caps -- Tech Roundup
04/09APPLE  : U.S. senators criticize Apple for not testifying on antitrust concerns
04/09WALL STREET STOCK EXCHANGE : S&P 500, Dow climb for third day and close at recor..
04/09APPLE  : Tech companies help lift stocks, push S&P 500 to record high
04/09SOCIAL BUZZ : GameStop Falls 7%, Fubo Rallies 10% on Qatar World Cup Streaming R..
04/09Dow, S&P 500 Rally to Fresh Records
04/09Vacation Rentals that Deliver Serenity and Fuel Creativity
04/09Major Stock Indexes Poised for Weekly Gains
More news
Financials (USD)
Sales 2021 333 B - -
Net income 2021 74 622 M - -
Net cash 2021 64 612 M - -
P/E ratio 2021 30,0x
Yield 2021 0,64%
Capitalization 2 233 B 2 233 B -
EV / Sales 2021 6,51x
EV / Sales 2022 6,19x
Nbr of Employees 147 000
Free-Float 99,9%
Duration : Period :
Apple Inc. Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends APPLE INC.
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus OUTPERFORM
Number of Analysts 47
Average target price 150,10 $
Last Close Price 133,00 $
Spread / Highest target 31,6%
Spread / Average Target 12,9%
Spread / Lowest Target -37,6%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
Timothy Donald Cook Chief Executive Officer & Director
Luca Maestri Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
Arthur D. Levinson Independent Chairman
Kevin M. Lynch Vice President-Technology
Jeffrey E. Williams Chief Operating Officer
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
APPLE INC.0.23%2 232 733