{"id":429,"date":"2011-02-25T17:05:17","date_gmt":"2011-02-26T01:05:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ipmetrics.net\/blog\/?p=429"},"modified":"2011-02-25T17:05:17","modified_gmt":"2011-02-26T01:05:17","slug":"hypothetical-license-analysis-questioned-in-oracle-v-sap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/litigation\/case-law\/hypothetical-license-analysis-questioned-in-oracle-v-sap\/","title":{"rendered":"Hypothetical License Analysis Questioned in Oracle v. SAP"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a massive filing this week, European business-software giant SAP AG is looking to have a new trial on damages.  The liability phase was concluded last fall, and the jury&#8217;s award of $1.3 billion to Oracle Corp. plus $14 million in pre-judgment interest is the only point of contention left.<\/p>\n<p><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-430\" title=\"IP Expert Witness icon\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/02\/IP-Expert-Witness-icon.jpg?resize=100%2C92\" alt=\"\" width=\"100\" height=\"92\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Coming on the heels of the recent high-profile reviews of IP infringement damages analyses sparked by the <a href=\"http:\/\/ipmetrics.net\/blog\/2011\/01\/06\/entire-market-rule-misapplied\/\">Uniloc v. Microsoft<\/a> and the <a href=\"http:\/\/ipmetrics.net\/blog\/2011\/01\/07\/another-patent-damages-report-bites-the-dust\/\">Versata v. SAP<\/a> cases, this latest motion asks the Court to question the proper application of the <em>Georgia Pacific<\/em> factors, which arose in the context of Patent Law, to determine a reasonable royalty to determine the proper remedy for the Plaintiff in this copyright infringement case, and offering the alternative of the disgorgement of defendants&#8217; profits, among other case-specific issues.<\/p>\n<p>According to the motions, damages should be reduced to a level commensurate with Plaintiff&#8217;s own expert&#8217;s determination of Oracle&#8217;s Lost Profits, which are less than $300 million.  In a way, part of the argument is that, in analyzing the &#8220;hypothetical license&#8221; scenario, Oracle&#8217;s expert improperly included in the royalty the reimbursement of Oracle&#8217;s overall R&amp;D investments and disregarded evidence of the actual extent of the use made of the infringing information and the actual number of customers SAP acquired.<\/p>\n<p>We shall continue to monitor the changing damages landscape, not only from the perspective of <a href=\"http:\/\/ipmetrics.net\/blog\/2011\/02\/24\/patent-damages-reforms-to-be-considered-next-month\/\">legislative reform<\/a>, but also from the increasingly acute scrutiny of patent infringement damages expert reports.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a massive filing this week, European business-software giant SAP AG is looking to have a new trial on damages. The liability phase was concluded last fall, and the jury&#8217;s award of $1.3 billion to Oracle Corp. plus $14 million in pre-judgment interest is the only point of contention left.  According to the motions, damages should be reduced to a level commensurate with Plaintiff&#8217;s own expert&#8217;s determination of Oracle&#8217;s Lost Profits, which are less than $300 million. In a way, part of the argument is that, in analyzing the &#8220;hypothetical license&#8221; scenario, Oracle&#8217;s expert improperly included in the royalty the reimbursement of Oracle&#8217;s overall R&#038;D investments and disregarded evidence of the actual extent of the use made of the infringing information and the actual number of customers SAP acquired.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4,6,10],"tags":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2xROl-6V","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}