Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that actions by the PTO are of limited value when attempting to establish a good faith belief of invalidity
• stating that “absolute precision” is not required in apportionment, as “it is well-understood that this process may involve some degree of approximation and uncertainty”
• stating that “absolute precision” is not required in the task of apportionment, as “it is well-understood that this process may involve some degree of approximation and uncertain- ty”
• separately evaluating admissibility of expert opinions pertaining to royalty base and royalty rate, and concluding that the former were inadmissible whereas the latter were admissible
• “It is not enough to show that the patented feature is viewed as valuable, important, or even essential to the use of the overall product.”
• “[W]e note that we have never required absolute precision in [applying the principles of apportionment]; on the contrary, it is well-understood that this process may involve some degree of approximation and uncertainty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).