Rob Merges’ paper Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalties: Two Distinct Remedies for Two Separate Harms, 40 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 323 (2025), is now available on the journal’s website. (I was favorably impressed with an earlier version of the paper, which I blogged about here.) Here is the abstract:
I argue that the two types of damages described in the Patent Act are more than a menu of compensatory options. They describe two distinct types of harm caused by patent infringement. Each comes with a distinctive cluster of remedies. Harm to Product Markets (HPM) is redressed by lost profit damages, and in most cases a permanent injunction against future infringement. This type of damages can be thought of as the mirror image of damages for violations of antitrust law. Antitrust cases are about illicit lack of competition: a wrongful reduction in the competitive state of a product market. Patent damages are about illicit competition: the presence of an unauthorized competitor (the infringer) wrongly increasing the level of competition in the market for the patented item. Odd as it may seem to students of microeconomics, HPM damages are all about giving compensation for interference with a virtuous, or at least statutorily protected, monopolist.
The other type of harm, Lost Licensing Opportunity (LLO), occurs when a patent owner is not a participant in the product market for products embodying the patented invention. The traditional remedy of a reasonable royalty is applied in these cases: the law in effect writes a hypothetical contract in which the patent owner licenses its patent to the infringer. Compensation takes the form of an estimate of the value the infringer gained by using the patent owner’s technology as an input. When the input adds real value, and the patent owner is a repeat-player, specialized research and licensing company, the reasonable royalty measure of damages does much the same as HPM damages. The only difference is that damages in LLO cases are measured in markets for patent licensing, rather than for patented products.
But not all LLO harm is truly equal. Not all involuntary conferral of benefits should be thought of as the equivalent of a market exchange. Restitution emerged as a distinct branch of equity to address just this issue. Restitution principles reflect the fact that sometimes a benefit is conferred not on a willing market participant, but on a recipient who never asked for the “benefit” and had no effective notice of it; would prefer not to have received it; and in some cases is the victim of strategic, opportunistic tactics that make “receipt” of the benefit unavoidable. One example from patent law is when a patent owner alters patent boundaries to capture some of the value of the recipient’s own contributions. I call this “engineered encroachment.” In most contemporary private law interactions, the law protects the innocent defendant by requiring fault or intent before liability is imposed. But lack of notice, and the good vs. bad faith of the patent owner, are irrelevant in patent law’s regime of strict liability for direct infringers. My proposal here is for courts to sort out the different types of LLO harm using traditional principles of restitutionary recovery. When a patented, intangible input (benefit) is used (received) by an infringer, patent courts should deploy the full spectrum of restitutionary doctrine in pursuit of interparty fairness under the facts of each infringement case. In extreme cases of “engineered encroachment,” for example, courts might deny any recovery for infringement.
I don’t have much to add in addition to my comments from last year’s blog post on the draft version of the article. One thing that struck me forcefully on reading the published version, however, was this portion from near the end of the paper, where Professor Merges argues against U.S. patent law’s turn towards formalism:
What’s needed, in my view, is patent law heresy. We need a little more wiggle room in at least parts of patent law. Formalism—or better, a stale formalism—stands in the way of flexibility, adaptability. Rules dominate over standards, when sometimes it ought to be the reverse. It seems at least odd, if not in fact heretical, to argue for the exercise of more judicial discretion. That goes against the grain of patent law in the Federal Circuit era. And it raises the anti-democratic specter of elite Platonic Guardians—monarchs in black robes—who are in charge because “they know better.” I realize all that.
But I have two extremely powerful responses. First, ironically perhaps, is history: patent law has always been a flexible and adaptable body of law. It has not, traditionally, been (as the Supreme Court put it in a not-long-ago opinion) “the prisoner of a formula.” Most notably, federal judges have at times invented doctrine out of thin air. In response to felt needs, they made up more stringent tests for patentability [citing to the origins of the nonobviousness doctrine], resolved a knotty issue of follow-on inventions [citing to the origins of the rule against double patenting], adapted remedies (as we have seen) to fit different types of patent-related harms . . . and so on. . . .
The second reason to install more flexibility in patent infringement doctrine is that flexible standards will promote true innovation more than the current rigid formalism. This is certainly true when it comes to remedies for LLO-type infringement harm. . . . Engineered patent encroachment may be in some sense legitimate in more than a few cases. But in many others, intentional boundary-shifting to capture third-party contributions will be the real story. There is little social value in this. . . .
The kind of balancing I am calling for ensures continued attention to overall fairness, and to the primary goals of the patent system. A conventional objection to this sort of attention to the big picture is that it is subjective, it is unpredictable. But absolute predictability through strict adherence to clear rules can produce unfairness. Especially when clever and creative actors take advantage of strict rules to manufacture an injustice (as, arguably, small component patent owners did when receiving a permanent injunction, pre-eBay). To prevent the “gaming” of rules, it is sometimes necessary to resort to meta-rules or principles whose very purpose is to modify strict rules when they lead to an unfair outcome [citing to Henry Smith, Equity as Meta-Law, 130 Yale L.J. 1050, 1080-81 (2021)].
I am inclined to agree. Especially in this era of hyper-textualism, it is important to recognize that many familiar doctrines of patent law originated as judge-made common law, and that even the current statute leaves many gaps that have to be filled by judicially-crafted doctrine. There is, to be sure, some risk that too much flexibility, balancing, and resort to multi-factor standards (as opposed to bright-line rules) will result in unpredictable, inconsistent, arbitrary, ad hoc, uninformed, or otherwise unwise results (as Merges recognizes). But especially in IP law, some degree of “ad hockery” is inevitable, as Learned Hand pointed out more than once in the context of IP law. More generally, in my view, judging sometimes requires the exercise of, well, judgment, as opposed to mechanical application of formal rules; and much the same reasoning underlies the civil law’s abuse of right doctrine, as I understand it from my reading of the work of Amandine Léonard and others. That said, the debate is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, if ever; and for a thoughtful discussion of a contrasting perspective, primarily within the context of copyright law, I recommend taking a look at Norman Siebrasse's paper Against Balancing, 35 IPJ 181 (2023).
No comments:
Post a Comment