Determination of Reasonable Royalty Should Consider Benefits to Patentee and Infringer
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.01.07
A Federal Circuit panel, in Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling (No. 05-1570, -1598; May 24, 2007), affirms a district court's patent infringement damage award. In so doing, the Court holds that the jury properly considered the benefits that plaintiff Monsanto’s established licensing program conferred on both Monsanto and its licensees in order to establish a reasonable royalty.
Monsanto’s patents cover a system for weed control that employs genetically modified crops resistant to glyphosate herbicides. Monsanto distributes patented seeds by authorizing various companies to produce the seeds and sell them to farmers. McFarling purchased patented seed and signed a “Technology Agreement” which prohibited McFarling from planting seeds produced from the purchased seed. McFarling paid a $6.50 license fee to Monsanto per 50-pound bag of seed. McFarling also paid an authorized seed company between $19 and $22 per bag of seed. McFarling subsequently violated the Technology Agreement by planting seed produced by the patented seed. Monsanto sued for breach of contract and patent infringement. At trial, the jury awarded Monsanto a reasonable royalty rate of $40 per bag of seed. McFarling appealed the royalty rate and argued that Monsanto had established a royalty rate of $6.50 per bag through its established licensing program.
The Federal Circuit panel agrees with McFarling’s position that “an established royalty is usually the best measure of a “reasonable royalty” for a given use of an invention because it removes the need to guess at the terms to which parties would hypothetically agree.” In affirming the jury’s award, however, the Federal Circuit holds that “it was proper for the jury to consider not only the benefits of the licensing program to Monsanto, but also the benefits that Monsanto’s technology conferred on farmers such as Mr. McFarling.” The court finds that the benefits of increased yield and the reduced cost of weed control confer a savings of $31 to $61 per bag of seed to McFarling and then concludes that the jury’s award of $40 per bag was reasonable.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision
Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
Recent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” Protests
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
