Lack Of Standing Is Fatal To Lost Profits Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.04.08
In Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., (No. 07-1409, -1436, June 2, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a district court's summary judgment excluding Mars' lost profits claim prior to 1996 based upon manufacture and sale by its former subsidiary which was non-exclusively licensed to use Mars' patented technology. However, the determination that Mars had standing to recover damages from 1996 to 2003 is reversed. The Federal Circuit affirms the district court's assessment of a 7% reasonable royalty rate and remands to the district court for recalculation of damages for the period prior to 1996. The panel relies on the Federal Circuit's 2004 Poly-America L.P. v. GSE Licensing Technology, Inc. decision which held that a patent holder is not entitled to recover under a lost profits theory as a result of sales lost by a sister corporation, absent a showing that the patent holder itself or its exclusive licensee had lost profits. Therefore, a non-exclusive licensee such as Mars' subsidiary did not have constitutional standing. Regarding the 1996-2003 period, Mars' lack of standing is found not to have been cured by a Confirmation Agreement transferring back to Mars the rights to the '137 and '719 patents before final judgment.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26

