Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
25Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
IP/Engine Motion for Award of Post-Judgement Royalties

IP/Engine Motion for Award of Post-Judgement Royalties

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,027 |Likes:
Published by PTSD_Trader
IP/Engine Motion for Award of Post-Judgement Royalties - Document #823
IP/Engine Motion for Award of Post-Judgement Royalties - Document #823

More info:

Published by: PTSD_Trader on Dec 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 1
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIANORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________)I/P ENGINE, INC., ))Plaintiff, )v. ) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512)AOL, INC. et al., ))Defendants. )__________________________________________)
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’SMOTION FOR AN AWARD OF POST-JUDGMENT ROYALTIES
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) respectfully moves this Court to order thatDefendants pay an ongoing running royalty for Defendants’ continuing infringement of I/PEngine’s patents-in-suit. I/P Engine requests that Defendants be required to pay such royaltiesfrom the date of entry of final judgment in this action (November 20, 2012) until Defendantseither cease their infringement, or until the expiration date of the patents-in-suit (April 4, 2016).As set forth and explained in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, determining theappropriate post-judgment running royalty involves three steps: 1) determining the appropriateroyalty base, 2) determining the appropriate royalty rate, and 3) determining the frequency of theroyalty payment. The evidence presented at trial establishes that Google’s implementation of theinfringing SmartAds technology generated a positive impact of at least 20.9% on Google’s U.S.AdWords revenues, which is the appropriate royalty base. The appropriate post-judgmentroyalty rate should be 7% based upon changed circumstances in the post-judgment hypothetical
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 822 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 21576
 
 2negotiation and in light of Defendants’ ongoing willful infringement. Defendants should alsoprovide an accounting and pay those ongoing royalties quarterly.Dated: December 18, 2012By: /s/ Jeffrey K. SherwoodDonald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC150 West Main StreetNorfolk, VA 23510Telephone: (757) 623-3000Facsimile: (757) 623-5735Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)Frank C. Cimino, Jr.Kenneth W. BrothersDawn Rudenko AlbertCharles J. Monterio, Jr.DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP1825 Eye Street, NWWashington, DC 20006Telephone: (202) 420-2200Facsimile: (202) 420-2201Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 822 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 21577

Activity (25)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Duke Palmer liked this
Mark Kugel liked this
Il Yoo liked this
Shane Gibson liked this
Il Yoo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->