Entire Market Value Rule Inappropriate When Patented Feature Not Sole Driver of Customer Demand

https://depositphotos.com/4013287/stock-photo-man-burnning-the-money.htmlPower Integrations, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,079 (“the ‘079 patent”) and 6,538,908 (“the ‘908 patent”). Power Integrations sued Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively “Fairchild”) for infringement. A jury found Fairchild literally infringed the ‘079 patent and infringed the ‘908 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury subsequently awarded damages of $140 million, applying the entire market value rule in calculating damages. Fairchild appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgments of infringement, but concluded that the entire market value rule was inappropriately used in this case to calculate damages. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, No. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18177 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018) (Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Chen, J.) (Opinion for the court, Dyk, J.).


Fairchild argued it did not have a “fixed switching frequency for a first range of feedback signal values,” in Power’s ‘079 claims, because Fairchild’s product operated with a 5% to 15% variance in frequency. Expert testimony demonstrated that no real-world power supply controllers could operate with an absolutely fixed, or non-varying, frequency. Consequently, the Federal Circuit rejected this argument because it would render the claims inoperable. Fairchild alternatively argued “fixed switching frequency” to include a “non-varying number of switching cycles per second.” The Court dismissed this argument because a party cannot reserve a new claim-construction argument for the post-trial motion stage of litigation. Accordingly, the lower court did not err in finding infringement of the ‘079 patent.

Fairchild also disputed the lower court’s finding of infringement of Power’s ‘098 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. At issue was whether prosecution estoppel barred Power from using the terms “voltage” and “current” interchangeably when, in a related patent, Power explicitly distinguished “voltage” from “current.” Because the related patent (the ‘971 patent) specifically distinguished the two terms and the ‘098 patent merely described a “signal” related to the “current limit,” the Federal Circuit held that Fairchild failed to establish that Power Integrations clearly surrendered the subject matter, making prosecution estoppel inapplicable.


The jury applied the entire market rule to award $139.8 million to Power Integrations. The Federal Circuit explained that the Court has previously cautioned against over application of the entire market value rule because it can skew damages awards higher than justified when there is a multi-component product at issued that incorporates a patented component. This is the case because the entire market value rule allows recovery of damages based on the value of the entire apparatus, but only when the patented feature constitutes the basis for consumer demand. Consequently, the entire market value rule is applicable only when the patented feature is the sole driver of customer demand.

Here, Power Integrations’ controllers had other valuable features, which made the entire market rule an inappropriate damages model to employ. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court’s damages award and remanded for a new trial on the basis of damages.

Take Away

A claim construction argument must be made prior to the post-trial motion stage of litigation. Prosecution estoppel is applicable only when a patentee clearly surrenders the argued subject matter during prosecution. The entire market rule is inapplicable when patented features are not the sole driver of customer demand.


Image Source: Deposit Photos.

The Author

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded IPWatchdog.com in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.