Find out more about this
Gesmer Updegrove has represented more than 125 standards consortia and open source foundations, including:
View Full Client List
Useful Links

Communications Center Press Center Sitemap

Tools

Text Size:
Default  Large

RSS Feeds

Bookmark and Share

Standards <Meta>Library

Newest Additions to the MetaLibrary

To install an automatic RSS alert on your computer, see RSS Feed Intallation.


Title: "Analysis of Patents Declared as Essential to GSM as of June 6, 2007"
Author: Fairfield Resources International
Publication Date: December 31 2007
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Fairfield Resources International has conducted a study, with financial support from a wireless equipment maker, of intellectual property related to GSM cellular technology. This technology is embodied in standards documents published by the Third Generation Partnership Project, accessible at www.3gpp.org. The aims of the study are to examine the nature of the technology covered by the intellectual property, the ownership of the intellectual property and the extent to which technical experts judge the intellectual property to be technically essential to implementing the standards.
Link: Full Text

Title: "DO PATENT HOLDUP AND ROYALTY STACKING LEAD TO SYSTEMATICALLY EXCESSIVE ROYALTIES?"
Author: Einer Elhauge
Source: Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 4(3), 535 - 570
Publication Date: January 2008
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Some recent literature has concluded that patent remedies result in systematically excessive royalties because of holdup and stacking problems. This article shows that this literature is mistaken. The royalty rates predicted by the holdup models are often (plausibly most of the time) below the true optimal rate. Further, those predicted royalty rates are overstated because of incorrect assumptions about constant demand, one-shot bargaining, and informational symmetry. Although this literature concludes that overcompensation problems are exacerbated by doctrines measuring damages using past negotiated royalties, in fact such doctrines exacerbate undercompensation problems. Undercompensation problems are further increased to the extent that juries cannot measure damages with perfect accuracy, a problem that persists even if damages are just as likely to be overestimated as underestimated. Nor do the royalty rates predicted by the holdup model apply if there is competition in the downstream product market or upstream market for inventions. Royalty stacking does not lead to royalties that exceed the optimal rate, contrary to this literature, but in fact tends to produce royalties that are at or below the optimal rate.
Link: Full Text

Title: "The Peculiar Evolution of 3G Wireless Networks: Institutional Logic, Politics, and Property Rights"
Author: Peter F. Cowhey
Jonathan D. Aronson
John E. Richards
Publication Date: January
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: In 2002 wireless phone connections surpassed the n umber of wired connections globally and became the primary communications infrastructure for all but the largest firms in many developing countries. New, third gene ration (3G) wireless networks promise to provide mobile voice and multimedia data to users worldwide. 3G is more advanced than first generation (1G), analog mobile services that provide only voice services and second generation digital services (2G ) that handle voice and some text data. The technological advances available using 3G wireless networks could put wireless mobile networks on a par with wired networks for delivering data for households and for small and medium enterprises. To achieve this goal firms invested hundreds of billions of dollars in anticipation of annual revenues in the tens of billions. If 3G succeeds, it will be an important part of tomorrow's global communications infrastructure. However, major problems emerged by 1999. What went wrong? This paper uses contemporary models of political economy to explain the troubled evolution of 3G.
Link: Full Text

Title: "The Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties"
Author: Thomas F. Cotter
Source: Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-40
Publication Date: August 29 2013
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Standard setting organizations often require their members to declare which of their patents are essential to the practice of a prospective standard, and to agree to license any such standard-essential patents (SEPs) on "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" (FRAND) terms. Among the issues that have arisen in recent disputes involving FRAND-encumbered SEPs are (1) whether a FRAND commitment creates a binding contract for the benefit of third parties, obligating the SEP owner to forgo the right to seek injunctive relief for the infringement of the SEP; (2) whether the law of remedies, or other principles of generally applicable civil law such as the doctrine of "abuse of right," can limit the prevailing SEP owner's ability to obtain injunctive relief; (3) the circustances under which competition law (antitrust) may play a role in resolving these matters; (4) whether the patentee is entitled to relief in the form of ongoing damages, if one or more of these bodies of law eliminates the possibility of an injunction; and (5) if so, how should courts calculate those damages. This article provides both an overview of how courts and other entities have begun to address these questions in the United States and elsewhere, and my analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of different possible approaches. I argue, among other things, first that courts generally should not allow SEP owners to obtain injunctions, but rather only ongoing damages; second, that in principle though perhaps not always in practice, it is preferable to use contract and patent law to achieve this result, as opposed to antitrust; and third, that in awarding monetary relief for the infringement of SEPs courts should apply the same methodology the use to calculate reasonable royalties generally, subject to a few modifications.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Marks of Rectitude"
Author: Margaret Chon
Source: Fordham Law Review, Vol. 77, p. 101, 2009
Publication Date: March 29 2009
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Trademarks and certification marks increasingly denote sustainability or social responsibility standards. These marks of rectitude are particularly noticeable in the context of global trade, where market integration is accompanied by relatively uneven integration of environmental, labor and other standards, and where consumers in the so-called global North choose how to empower producers and/or encourage development of markets in the global South. But consumer participation in these transactions is under-explored by reference to criteria such as the quality not to mention accountability and transparency of the standards embedded within the goods or services. Newer stakeholders and meaning-makers such as the largely invisible third party certifier determine whether a product conforms to a standard, which in turn is embodied in a mark. Marks of rectitude can be viewed as a type of decentralized regulation in response to a felt need for heightened social norms. Trademark law potentially can function to mediate between extremely different local conditions within a global market system, to signal not source of manufacturing origin (as in classic trademark law), or geographic origin (as signified by certification marks to provide geographic indication protection in the U.S.), but rather socially responsible practices within a global administrative framework. The "branding" aspect of this decentralized, privatized regulation raises the likelihood of slippage between the mark's function as a reliable indication of source and its newer regulatory functions. Can marks of rectitude bear the weight of the various goals that have proliferated in the global regulatory marketplace? Published as part of an intellectual property symposium exploring the collision of different paradigms, this essay examines how the public law framework provided by the Lanham Act can foster the conditions for consumer participation essential to these various private regimes.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest"
Author: Colleen V. Chien
Mark A. Lemley
Source: Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2022168
Publication Date: July 2 2012
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Because the ITC can't award damages, it has granted injunctions as a matter of course. But as we suggest in this paper, the Commission has more power to adjust the remedy it grants than previously recognized. We think it should use that flexibility to limit exclusion orders when competitive conditions demand it. A PAE may not be any more justified to receive an exclusion order from the ITC under its public interest analysis than to receive an injunction from a district court applying eBay. Even practicing entities should be denied the power to exclude in some circumstances, for example when the patents are standards-essential and/or encumbered by a RAND license, there is no evidence of bad faith, and the patentee can seek damages in the district court. When exclusion orders are issued, delays in their implementation and grandfathering in existing products can reduce holdup. Bond and penalty provisions could be used to ensure that patentees are compensated for ongoing infringement during these transition periods. Using its discretion wisely, the ITC can administer the statute to fairly and efficiently give patentees their due while minimizing harm to the public interest.
Link: Full Text

Title: "'Holding Up' and 'Holding Out'"
Author: Colleen V. Chien
Source: Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-13
Publication Date: August 30 2013
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Patent "hold-up" and patent "hold-out" present important, alternative theories for what ails the patent system. Patent "hold-up" occurs when a patent owner sues a company when it's most vulnerable - after it has implemented a technology - and is able wrest a settlement because it's too late for the company to change course. Patent "hold-out" is a term I use to describe the practice of companies routinely ignoring patents and resisting patent owner demands, because the odds of getting caught are small. Hold-up has arguably predicted the current patent crises - the smartphone wars, standards patents, or trolls all involve the ex-ante assertion of technology patents. Hold-up theory has been embraced by thought leaders and fueled the current drive by Congress and President Obama to reform the patent system. In this essay, I make the counterintuitive case that hold-up theory is wrong - or at least incomplete - and further, that what it is missing is full consideration of the other side - the side of hold-out. When large companies systematically "hold out" on patentees, they have no choice but to work with efficient patent enforcers or "trolls." When small inventors can't get their due in the marketplace due to unfair disadvantages, jurors just may give it to them in court. I argue that considering 'hold-out" and "hold-up" together provide a more complete picture than focus on either story alone, and that doing so reveals surprising pathways to a better patent system - focused on the design, rather than the doctrine of patent law. Instead of trying to eliminate all technology patents, or to enforce all of them, we should try to price them appropriately and reduce the distortions they produce. Instead of trying to make patent law perfect, we should make it cheaper, more streamlined, and more equitable. To do so, lawmakers should prioritize: 1) getting patentees and targets on the same page as early as possible, through early dispositive and damages disclosures, 2) tightening the interfaces between the various patent agencies, and 3) making it cheaper to resolve low-value disputes, as capped for example by the defendant's revenue exposure. Each of these steps would go a long way to curbing both hold-up and hold-out.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Patenting Strategies and Characteristics of Declared Inventions in the Long Term Evolution Standard"
Author: Federico Caviggioli
Antonio de Marco
Francesco Rogo
Guiseppe Scellato
Publication Date: August 26 2013
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: This study provides an empirical analysis of patent declarations at the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) concerning the core releases of the Long Term Evolution standard for mobile communications. The paper builds on recent contributions that have analyzed strategic patent filing behaviors of firms in the context of standard setting process in the telecommunication sector. We find that the distribution of essential inventions across firms appears less concentrated than in previous mobile standard generations, mainly due to the entry of new global players in the field. The data reveals substantial heterogeneity in the strategies adopted by companies with respect to the timing of filing of patents then claimed as essential for the standard. Some companies seem to strategically postpone the application of patents -- relying on industrial secrecy -- while observing the evolution of the standard setting process. The comparison of declared patents with a control sample of non-declared reveals that on average the former relate to more radical, complex and science-based inventions. Moreover, patents filed in the later phases of the consolidation of the standard tend to show a narrower technological scope and are less likely to have joint assignment.
Link: Full Text

Title: "An Economic Interpretation of FRAND"
Author: Dennis W. Carlton
Allan Shampine
Publication Date: April 24 2013
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Standard setting organizations have for many years required members to commit to license patents essential to use of standards on Fair, Reasonable and Non-discriminatory terms. Unfortunately, SSOs have not defined what FRAND means, leaving its interpretation to courts and regulators. This paper explains the economic concerns underlying FRAND - hold-up and strategic behavior leading to inefficient behavior in a standard setting context - and how a proper economic interpretation of FRAND can eliminate or mitigate those concerns. Ex ante analyses based on the "reasonable" principle can potentially eliminate hold-up, but, as a practical matter, may be costly, difficult to perform and error-prone. In such circumstances, the "non-discriminatory" principle of FRAND can provide some protection against hold-up even when the "reasonable" principle of FRAND does not.
Link: Full Text

Title: "THE EXPANDING ROLEAND IMPORTANCE OF STANDARDSIN THE INFORMATIONAND COMMUNICATIONSTECHNOLOGYINDUSTRY"
Author: Brad Biddle
Frank X. Curci
Timothy F. Haslach
Gary E. Marchant
Andrew Askland
Lyn Gaudet
Source: 52 Jurimetrics J. 177 - 208 (2012 )
Publication Date: December 2012
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Standards play a particularly critical role in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry: they facilitate important interoperability goals. Standards development processes in the ICT industry are extraordinarily complex, and many aspects of these processes are not well understood. Inspired by discussions at a workshop that included leading practitioners, academics, and policymakers specializing in standards, the authors identify factors that explain both the growing importance and the growing complexity of standards in the ICT industry. The authors provide a framework for understanding how standards development efforts are structured, with a particular focus on the more informal specification development groups known as Consortia. The authors also explore two particular challenges in standard setting: the development of intellectual property policies that adequately balance different stakeholder interests, and the potential for ethical conflict issues.
Link: Full Text

Title: "The Limits to IPR Standardization Policies as Evidenced by Strategic Patenting in UMTS"
Author: Rudi Bekkers
Joel West
Source: Telecommunications Policy, February/March issue 2009
Publication Date: February 1 2009
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: The impact of patents and patent royalties are a major concern of standards setting organizations. This study examines the patents filed in the standardization of UMTS, the third generation mobile phone technology developed under sponsorship of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute and others, using a patent policy developed in response to issues faced in the earlier GSM standardization. After contrasting firm strategies and policy effectiveness between the GSM and UTMS efforts, the paper reviews the potential impact of potential changes to the ETSI IPR policy
Link: Full Text

Title: "European standards for mobile communications: the tense relationship between standards and intellectual property rights"
Author: Rudi Bekkers
Isabelle Liotard
Source: European Intellectual Property Review
Publication Date: January 1999
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: This article starts by discussing the nature of European formal telecommunications standards. A new classification of the different types of standards is proposed, and the institutional framework for formal standards in Europe is described. The next section deals with the relevant property rights. We distinguish the strategies for three different phases in the standardisation process. The next section explains how the institutional field reacted to possible problems of IPRs within telecommunication standard. The subjects of the two final sections, firm strategy and the standardisation bodies' policy, are illustrated in the GSM case.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Mapping Standards to Patents using Databases of Declared Standard-Essential Patents and Systems of Technological Classification"
Author: Justus Baron
Tim Pohlmann
Publication Date: January
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: This paper describes a new database of declared Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs), discusses methods for matching declared SEPs with technology standards, and presents empirical evidence on technology standards subject to declared SEPs. While there is a growing body of empirical research using data on declared SEPs, this research has so far focused on the declared patents, and neglected the implications of SEP declarations for specific standards. Furthermore, we present a new methodology for matching standards with technology classes, using the classification of declared SEPs. This method allows identifying standard-related patents that have not been declared as essential, and provides a measure of standard-related patenting. The paper discusses opportunities for new empirical research using databases of declared SEPs and data on patenting in standard-related technology classes.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Unpacking 3GPP standards"
Author: Justus Baron
Kirti Gupta
Publication Date: March 24 2015
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to provide an institutional background and an overview of a comprehensive data-set on the standard setting process for widely adopted and successful 3G and 4G wireless cellular standards defined by the third generation partnership project (3GPP), a consortia of seven SSOs. We selected 3GPP for our study, because several of the issues being raised with respect to standards have been related to the wireless communications standards developed at this organization.
Link: Full Text

Title: "The Smartphone Royalty Stack: Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones"
Author: Ann K. Armstrong
Joseph J. Mueller
Tim Syrett
Publication Date: May 29 2014
Date Added: August 26 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: The smartphone industry has experienced a high number of patent cases over the past few years. These cases have highlighted the interplay among patent law, competition law, and the marketplace itself. This paper addresses the informational gap in the ongoing debate among courts, litigants, regulators, standard-setting organizations, and academics about the "royalty stack" for smartphones and the legal and policy implications that follow from the magnitude of such royalties. Using publicly-available data, the paper details U.S. patent royalty costs across smartphone components from wireless technologies to operating systems to user interfaces to outer-product design, addressing royalties on both product-differentiating technologies and standardized functions subject to commitments to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms. Where specific royalty information is not publicly available for a particular component, the article provides an overview of the amount of litigation relating to the component as a proxy for the likelihood of royalties.
Link: Full Text

Title: "ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards"
Source: ANSI
Publication Date: January 2015
Date Added: August 19 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: These requirements apply to activities related to the development of consensus for approval, revision, reaffirmation, and withdrawal of American National Standards (ANS). Due process means that any person (organization, company, government agency, individual, etc.) with a direct and material interest has a right to participate by: a) expressing a position and its basis, b) having that position considered, and c) having the right to appeal. Due process allows for equity and fair play. The following constitute the minimum acceptable due process requirements for the development of consensus.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Patents, Technical Standards and Standards-Setting Organizations: A Survey of the Empirical, Legal and Economics Literature"
Author: Jorge L. Contreras
Source: Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law - Vol. 2: Analytical Methods
Publication Date: August 9 2015
Date Added: August 19 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Despite their potential efficiency benefits, voluntary consensus standards have over the past decade become the subject of significant private litigation, regulatory enforcement and policy debate. Much of the controversy centers on the perceived proliferation of patents covering standardized technologies, potentially abusive enforcement of such patents against manufacturers and users of standardized products, and the terms on which patent holders may be required to license the use of those patents to others. This chapter offers a brief overview of the legal and economic literature concerning interoperability standards and standards-setting organizations, with a focus on empirical studies and contemporary patent and patent licensing concerns.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Patents and Standards A modern framework for IPR-based standardization"
Author: The European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium
Publication Date: March 25 2014
Date Added: August 19 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: The principle objective of this study is to collect quantitative and qualitative data on IPR-based standardization, with a focus on identifying barriers for efficient licensing of SEPs and on possible solutions to these barriers. The analysis is based on a review of the IPR and standardization framework in four industries: communication technology, consumer electronics, automotive and smart grids. The study identifies a range of options to lower barriers to SEP licensing and assesses these in terms of costs, benefits, and effectiveness. This report should aid the European Commission in its attempts to improve the European governance of SEP licensing arrangements. It can also be useful in the (ongoing) work of standard setting organizations on their IPR policies and rules.
Link: Full Text

Title: "ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: Promoting Innovation and Comptetion"
Author: U.S. Department of Justice
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Publication Date: April 2007
Date Added: August 19 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Over the past several decades, antitrust enforcers and the courts have come to recognize that intellectual property laws and antitrust laws share the same fundamental goals of enhancing consumer welfare and promoting innovation. This recognition signaled a significant shift from the view that prevailed earlier in the twentieth century, when the goals of antitrust and intellectual property law were viewed as incompatible: intellectual property law's grant of exclusivity was seen as creating monopolies that were in tension with antitrust law's attack on monopoly power. Such generalizations are relegated to the past. Modern understanding of these two disciplines is that intellectual property and antitrust laws work in tandem to bring new and better technologies, products, and services to consumers at lower prices.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Standards, Patent Policies, and Antitrust: A Critique of IEEE-II"
Author: Lisa Kimmel
Source: Antitrust, Vol 29, No. 3, Summer 2015
Publication Date: August 2015
Date Added: August 12 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract:
Link: Full Text

Title: "On organisational influences in software standards and their open source implementations"
Author: Jonas Jonas Gamalielsson
Bjorn Lundell
Jonas Feist
Tomas Gustavsson
Fredric Landqvist
Source: Information and Software Technology, Volume 67, November 2015, Pages 30 - 43
Publication Date: November 2015
Date Added: August 5 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: It is widely acknowledged that standards implemented in open source software can reduce risks for lock-in, improve interoperability, and promote competition on the market. However, there is limited knowledge concerning the relationship between standards and their implementations in open source software. This paper reports from an investigation of organisational influences in software standards and open source software implementations of software standards. The study focuses on the RDFa standard and its implementation in the Drupal project.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Intellectual Property Rights Protection in China: Litigation, Economic Damages, and Case Strategies"
Author: Alan Cox
Kristina Sepetys
Publication Date: March 1 2006
Date Added: March 25 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Although intellectual property rights (IPR) historically have not received strong protection in the People's Republic of China, as a result of external pressures and internal economic objectives China is now moving closer to the IPR practices and standards found in Western nations. A growing economy, more sophisticated laws, and increased attention to enforcement have led to IPR infringement cases being brought before Chinese authorities in greater numbers. However, IPR laws and policy that would strengthen and enforce the rights of IPR owners have yet to be fully implemented. In this chapter from Thomson West's Corporate Counsel's Guide to Doing Business in China, NERA Senior Vice President Dr. Alan Cox and former Senior Consultant Kristina Sepetys suggest that full implementation would likely provide a higher degree of deterrence to potential infringers. The authors argue that IPR violations may ultimately have negative effects on the broader Chinese economy by discouraging investment and imposing costs upon those companies attempting to offer goods and services. Dr. Cox and Ms. Sepetys note that because violations continue to be widespread, work remains to be done if China is to accord with other major economic powers in the area of IPR protection, particularly in the area of enforcement and damages.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Don't Feed the Trolls?"
Author: John Johnson
Gregory K. Leonard
Christine Meyer
Ken Serwin
Publication Date: September 30 2007
Date Added: March 25 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: Many vociferous opponents to patent trolls claim that trolls are a drag on society. Patent trolls often are accused of using the patent system to extort unreasonable royalty payments from companies who benefit the economy by developing products that consumers want. The extortionary royalty payments, it is said, constitute a "tax" that ultimately leads to less product development and higher prices for consumers. This article from Les Nouvelles examines whether there is an economic case to be made against trolls and whether society would be better off without them. The authors explore a range of issues surrounding patent trolls, including defining what kind of patent owner qualifies as a troll; the effects of troll activity on innovation; whether -- in light of the recent Supreme Court opinion in MercExchange v. eBay -- trolls should be allowed to exclude from the market entities that produce goods that embody their patents; and whether restrictions, or a downright prohibition, on trolls would increase or decrease social welfare.
Link: Full Text

Title: "The Patent Reform Act"
Author: Brian Ray
Source: Know IP - The Stockholm Network's Monthly IPR Journal Volume 4: Issue 1. January 2008
Publication Date: January 31 2008
Date Added: March 25 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: NERA Vice President Bryan Ray examines the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which was passed by the US House of Representatives in September and is currently awaiting action by the US Senate. The legislation includes amendments to the statutory provision for the award of damages for patent infringement. While the sponsors of the legislation believe that the amendments will help ensure that damages awards accurately reflect the harm caused by infringement, opponents argue that the amendments will unduly limit damages awards and unnecessarily constrain the approaches courts use to measure patent infringement damages. Mr. Ray reviews the proposed damages provisions in the context of existing case law and sound economic principles for the calculation of patent infringement damages.
Link: Full Text

Title: "Recurring Themes on Reasonable Royalties in Recent IP United States Damage Cases"
Author: Elizabeth Bailey
Alan Cox
Gregory Leonard
Source: NERA Economic Consulting
Publication Date: June 1 2011
Date Added: March 18 2015
Free/Fee: Free
Abstract: A source of considerable concern for companies selling products in the United States is the possibility of being sued for patent infringement in a US court. A finding of infringement of a valid US patent can lead to an award of monetary damages, either lost profits or a reasonable royalty, or a combination of the two. Historically, courts often have been willing to permit expert testimony on damages based on methodologies that had little or no rational, scientific, or business basis. However, four recent cases in the US are indicative of the trend toward higher standards for damage calculation: Lucent Technologies, Inc., v. Gateway, Inc. et al., i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corporation, Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard Company, and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Microsoft Corporation. The Cornell case is a lower court case that was presided over by Chief Judge Rader of the CAFC. All the others were decided by panels of the CAFC judges on appeal from lower courts. This NERA paper describes some of the economic themes that have emerged from these cases. The authors note that litigants in patent cases in the US will need to pay attention to the heightened standards for damage awards when formulating their damage cases. Defendants, in particular, may want to address economically unsound damage claims based on the opinions of the CAFC in these four cases.
Link: Full Text