35 U.S.C. § 284
Damages
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d).
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,453
cases (312 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Whitserve, LLC v. Comput. Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Whitserve, LLC v. Comput. Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “When a patent is infringed, the patentee is entitled to “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use 23 WHITSERVE v.”
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 837 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “On remand, we vacate the district court’s judg- ment with respect to enhanced damages for willful in- fringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and reinstate our earlier opinion and judgment in all other respects.”
Robert Bosch, Llc v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 719 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Justice Swayne, writing for the Court, went on to describe an accounting in detail, stating: The profits made in violation of the rights of the complainants’ in this class of cases, within the meaning of the law, are to be computed and ascer- tained by finding the difference…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648 (1983). “This case concerns the proper standard governing the award of prejudgment interest in a patent infringement suit under 35 U. S. C. § 284 . I In 1956 respondent Devex Corporation (Devex) filed a suit for patent infringement against petitioner General Motors Corporation (GMC) in…”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008). “As the earlier canvass of state experience showed, this is the model many States have adopted, see supra, at 2623, and n.”
Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016). “" 35 U.S.C. § 284 . In In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.”
Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “See 35 U.S.C. § 284 (“[D]amages adequate to compensate for the infringement .”
Siemens Med. Solutions Usa, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramins & Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “In addition, under 35 U.S.C. § 284 , “the floor for a damage award is no less than a reasonable royalty .”
Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “LaserDynamics sought reasonable royalty damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 . Pursuant to the analytical framework for assessing a reasonable royalty set forth in Georgia-Pacific Corp.”
In Re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “See 35 U.S.C. § 284 ; Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech.”
Howard A. Fromson v. W. Litho Plate & Supply Co. & Bemis Co., Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants, 853 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “We are in the dark, however, on whether the court considered Western’s infringement sufficiently willful to warrant some other level of increased (e.g., doubled) damages, or whether the court was under a mistaken impression that a willfulness finding and a treble damage award…”
Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc., 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “1749 (2014), and the terms of the governing statutory provision, 35 U.S.C. § 284 (2012). 2 HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.