Federal Judiciary

Objections to Submission of Future Royalty Rate to Jury

By Michael C. Smith

Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM Co., Ltd., 584 F.Supp.2d 916 (E.D.Tex. Nov 03, 2008) (NO. 9:07 CV 196)
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Objections to Submission of Future Royalty Rate to Jury OVERRULED
As readers know, Judge Clark recently started issuing orders indicating he would consider submitting to the jury a question on future damages.  Plaintiff in this case objected, asserting that because it is entitled to a permanent injunction if the jury finds infringement, submission of a question on a future royalty rate would confuse the jury, greatly increase the time and expense of trial preparation, and endanger its right to seek injunctive relief.
Judge Clark rejected the plaintiff's reasoning, writing that "The Federal Circuit has recognized
the need for the district court to provide a ?concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the
[future royalty] fee award.? Amado, 517 F.3d 1353, 1362. The jury verdict provides some assistance in this regard. As stated by United States District Judge William Young, the concept of a jury question on future damages is ?not only efficient? but a technique that ?recognizes the vital role of the jury as fact finding partner.? Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 581 F.Supp.2d 160, 210, n. 12, 2008 WL 4452454 at *45, n. 12 (D.Mass. Oct. 2, 2008)."

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on January 22, 2009 (boomark / email).