Pop quiz: What's the easiest way to get prior licenses tossed from your reasonable royalty analysis?
Judge Andrews gave the answer today in a lengthy post-trial opinion in a case involving car seat technology. After determining that the asserted patents were valid and not infringed, he turned to damages.
Both parties relied on prior licenses that "deal generally with childcare products" to support their reasonable royalty analyses, including one "related to folding strollers" and one that "involves embedded chips that can alert a parent as a child safety feature[.]"
Judge Andrews disregarded both licenses because there was no evidence of technological comparability:
Neither party has made clear why the folded stroller in Scotty or the chip-based child safety feature of …