Insights
Publications

The Northern District of California Seeks to Bring More Clarity to Damages with its Latest Revised Patent Local Rules

2/2/2017 Articles

On January 17, the Northern District of California approved the latest amendments to its Patent Local Rules, which became effective immediately. Traditionally seen as a thought leader on organizing and structuring patent cases, the Northern District has once again taken the lead among federal district courts by enacting a series of changes intended to bring clarity and transparency to the issue of patent damages earlier in the life cycle of a case. The following changes require both plaintiffs and defendants to address damages discovery up front and to articulate damages positions early:

  • At the initial Case Management Conference, all parties must be prepared to discuss the scope and timing of any damages discovery and are also required to “provide the court with a non-binding, good-faith estimate of the damages range expected for the case along with an explanation for the estimates.” P.L.R. 2-1(b)(2) & (5).
  • The patent holder must now include in its Infringement Contentions the “timing of the point of first infringement, the start of claimed damages, and the end of claimed damages.” P.L.R. 3-1(h).
  • The patent holder is now required to disclose in its Infringement Contentions any licensee’s product it intends to rely on as an embodying product. P.L.R. 3-1(g).
  • The patent holder’s initial document production must now include all agreements transferring interest in the patents, licenses to the patents-in-suit, any other licenses that the patent holder contends is “comparable” for purposes of calculating a reasonable royalty, documents sufficient to show marking; revenues, sales, and profits for any practicing products, and documents reflecting FRAND commitments (if appropriate). P.L.R. 3-2.
  • An accused infringer’s initial document production must now include any “comparable” licenses from the perspective of the accused infringer; revenue, sales, and profits for any accused products for the time period specified in the Infringement Contentions; and any other agreements that may be used to support the accused infringer’s damages case. P.L.R. 3-4.
  • Patent holders are now required for the first time to serve “Damages Contentions” no later than 50 days after Invalidity Contentions are served. The Damages Contentions must identify each category of damages a plaintiff is seeking, its theories of recovery, factual support for these theories, and a computation of damages within each category. These categories include lost profits, price erosion, convoyed sales, reasonable royalty, and any other form of damages. P.L.R. 3-8.
  • Accused infringers are required for the first time to serve “Responsive Damages Contentions” no later than 30 days after Damages Contentions are served. The Responsive Damages Contentions must specify how and why the accused infringer disagrees with the Damages Contentions and include the accused infringer’s affirmative position on each issue. P.L.R. 3-9.[1]

How Does This Affect Parties Litigating Patent Cases in This District?

These new damages-related amendments to the Patent Local Rules substantially increase the preparation and potential burden for parties litigating in the Northern District of California. Patent holders may no longer be able to wait until expert discovery to articulate a damages position as they have in the past. As a result of the new rules, patent holders should begin developing their damages theories as part of their pre-filing investigation given that they will now be required to provide a good faith estimate of the damages range at the initial Case Management Conference and then provide Damages Contentions within 50 days of service of the alleged infringer’s Invalidity Contentions. Although the Patent Local Rules do permit both patent holder and defendants to claim they cannot make fulsome disclosures on damages absent additional discovery, the rules require parties to specifically identify the information that is needed. By enacting these rules, the Northern District has announced its expectation that parties will provide its damages positions earlier in the case and that they cannot withhold these positions merely by arguing that discovery is ongoing.

The new rules also require accused infringers to develop their damages positions much earlier than in the past by imposing document production requirements for damages-related materials and with the new damages contentions requirement. Both patent holders and accused infringers likely will have to engage damages experts earlier in cases to help develop their damages contentions. One potentially interesting development to monitor is whether the new damages contentions will lead to an increase in the use of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment in patent cases. Another strategic issue to track is whether a party can forego articulating fulsome damages disclosures by stating that the amount of damages depends on the outcome of claim construction. Finally, the questions of how lenient courts will be in allowing parties to amend their damages contentions, and what standard will apply, will likely be the subject of much litigation.[2]

Overall, these changes to the Patent Local Rules are intended to bring greater clarity to damages in patent cases, and we would not be surprised to see other districts around the country adopting similar requirements in the coming years.


[1] The Northern District also enacted a change to the claim construction procedure to require parties to identify in the P.L.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement any factual findings that are related to claim construction. P.L.R. 4-3(f).
[2] P.L.R. 3-6’s “good cause” requirement for amendment to contentions on its face only applies to Infringement Contentions and Invalidity Contentions. No similar provision was enacted with respect to parties' Damages Contentions.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Hsu Untied Interview With Dan Callaway

Dan Callaway, a partner specializing in intellectual property litigation, was a guest on Hsu Untied , an award-winning podcast hosted and produced by Richard Hsu featuring entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, best-selling authors, and more.  During...

Read More
Publication

Is the Copyright Threat to Generative AI Overhyped? Implications of Kadrey v. Meta

In November 2023, Meta successfully had nearly all of the claims against it dismissed in the Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. suit, a victory with potential implications for other technology companies with generative AI tools...

Read More
News

JPMorgan Chase Accuses TransUnion of Stealing 'Trade Secrets'

Intellectual property practice chair Eugene Mar provided expert commentary to American Banker for the article "JPMorgan Chase Accuses TransUnion of Stealing 'Trade Secrets'." In the article, he said: "By filing this as a trade...

Read More
Publication

Fair Use Question Goes to Trial in AI Copyright Lawsuit – Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence

On September 25, 2023, a United States Circuit Judge determined that fact questions surrounding issues of fair use and tortious interference required a jury to decide media conglomerate Thomson Reuters’s lawsuit against Ross Intelligence...

Read More
Publication

Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: AI Copyright Law and Fair Use on Trial

On Sept. 25, 2023, Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation in the District of Delaware), determined that fact questions surrounding issues of fair use and tortious interference required a jury to decide media conglomerate...

Read More
Publication

Will the Supreme Court Limit Copyright Damages? Implications of Warner Chappell Music, Inc. et al. v. Sherman Nealy et al.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. et al. v. Sherman Nealy et al. (Case No. 22-1078) on February 21, 2024. On the surface, the case presents the opportunity...

Read More
News

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More
Publication

It Wasn’t Me, It Was the AI: Intellectual Property and Data Privacy Concerns With Nonprofits’ Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems

In today's rapidly changing technological landscape, artificial intelligence (AI) is making headlines and being discussed constantly. To be sure, AI provides a powerful tool to nonprofits in creating content and exploiting for countless cost-effective...

Read More
News

Winston Liaw Named a Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Winston Liaw has been named a Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Fellow for 2024. Winston joins a select group of...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More