直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Damages: “Built-In” Apportionment Using Comparable License Agreements

September 2022

The Licensing Journal

By Daniel C. Cooley; Kathleen Hanley*

Calculating patent damages is “not an exact science.” This is especially true when addressing principles of apportionment. The principle of apportionment seeks to ensure that the patent holder does not obtain an unfair benefit by receiving value for features of the infringing product that are not covered by the asserted patent. It does so by requiring that the patentee “apportion” the damages between the patented feature and all other non-patented features. But determining how to apportion, especially when there is evidence of comparable license agreements, requires careful analysis.

Read "Damages: "Built-In" Apportionment Using Comparable License Agreements"

Tags

damages

Downloadable Files

  • PUBLISHED - The Licensing Journal - Damages_'Built-In' Apportionment Using Comparable License Agreements - DCC KCH - September 2022

Related Practices

Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions

Licensing, Pooling, and Other Transactions

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Related Professionals

Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email

*Kathleen Hanley is a law clerk at Finnegan

Reprinted with permission from The Licensing Journal
, published by Wolters Kluwer. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP