Viktoriya I. Chervilova, Et Ano, V. Incyte Pathology, Inc., Et Ano

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that award of quarterly compounding of prejudgment interest was matter within trial court’s discretion
• rejecting the argument that a patentee must demonstrate that it borrowed at the prime rate in order to be entitled to prejudgment interest at that rate
• rejecting defendant's argument there is a rule requiring \affirmative demonstration\ because \the question of the rate at which such an award should be made is a matter of left to the sound discretion of the trier of fact\
• rejecting a special master’s rate that failed to give effect to the licensor’s actual practice, stating that “[i]f the master had looked to [the licensor’] actual practices ... the guessing game as to the economic value of the up-front payments would have been unnecessary”
• “The patentee’s usual licens- ing approach should be considered in assessing a reason- able royalty.”
• “We reject [the defendant’s] argument because our considered view of Lam is that it did not establish any ‘rule’ requiring what [the defendant] calls an ‘affirmative demonstration’ [of the necessity of a higher interest rate].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).