Here are the 15 Georgia-Pacific factors considered for patent infringement
The court used these 15 factors to determine the type of monetary payments that would compensate for a patent infringement in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 FSupp 1116, 6 USPQ 235 (SD NY 1970):
- The royalties received by Georgia-Pacific for licensing the patent, proving or tending to prove an established royalty.
- The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other similar patents.
- The nature and scope of the license, such as whether it is exclusive or nonexclusive, restricted or nonrestricted in terms of territory or customers.
- Georgia-Pacific’s policy of maintaining its patent monopoly by licensing the use of the invention only under special conditions designed to preserve the monopoly.
- The commercial relationship between Georgia-Pacific and licensees, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business or whether they are inventor and promoter.
- The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other Georgia-Pacific products; the existing value of the invention to Georgia-Pacific as a generator of sales of nonpatented items; and the extent of such derivative or “convoyed” sales.
- The duration of the patent and the term of the license.
- The established profitability of the patented product, its commercial success and its current popularity.
- The utility and advantages of the patent property over any old modes or devices that had been used.
- The nature of the patented invention, its character in the commercial embodiment owned and produced by the licensor, and the benefits to those who used it.
- The extent to which the infringer used the invention and any evidence probative of the value of that use.
- The portion of the profit or selling price that is customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses.
- The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from any nonpatented elements, manufacturing process, business risks or significant features or improvements added by the infringer.
- The opinion testimony of qualified experts.
- The amount that Georgia-Pacific and a licensee would have agreed upon at the time the infringement began if they had reasonably and voluntarily tried to reach an agreement.
|
|
Pingback: JETLawBlog: The Official Blog of the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law » Fact-Specific Nexus Required — Death of the Twenty-Five Percent Rule