Federal Circuit Vacates Damages Award, Clarifies “Smallest Salable Unit,” and Asks for More When Invoking the Nash Bargaining Solution

Sep 17, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit clarified the application of the “smallest salable unit” to determine the royalty base. The smallest salable unit approach is a way to apportion damages tied to the claimed invention, rather than using the entire market value. But it is not applicable to multi­component products (in this case, iOS devices) with several non­infringing features (e.g., web browser, email, iMessage) with no relation to the allegedly infringing features (i.e., FaceTime and VPN On Demand). Because the iOS devices are multi­component products, damages must be apportioned, even though the iOS device is the smallest salable unit. That is why the court held that the jury instruction, which allowed the jury to rely on the entire market value without apportioning for the allegedly infringing features, was erroneous.

In determining a royalty base, you should not use the value of the entire apparatus or product unless either: (1) the patented feature creates the basis for the customers’ demand for the product, or the patented feature substantially creates the value of the other component parts of the product; or (2) the product in question constitutes the smallest saleable unit containing the patented feature.

Relatedly, the Federal Circuit ruled that the district court should have excluded VirnetX’s expert testimony on damages as inadmissible because it was based on the entire market value without apportioning damages to the allegedly infringing features.

The Federal Circuit also took issue with using the Nash Bargaining Solution to determine the profit split between VirnetX and Apple. Much like the “25 percent rule of thumb,” the Nash Bargaining Solution is based on several premises. But the premises are not necessarily met by the facts in every case. That is why the court rejected the “25 percent rule of thumb” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus inadmissible … because it fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to

the facts of the case at issue”). And, for similar reasons, the court ruled that VirnetX’s use of the Nash Bargaining Solution was inappropriate because its expert failed to “sufficiently establish that the premises of the theorem actually apply to the facts of the case at hand.”

VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2013­1489 (Fed. Cir. September 16, 2014).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.