Did the court err in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art”?
“We hold the existing licenses upon which Mr. Kennedy relied were insufficient, individually or in combination, to support his conclusion that prior licensees agreed to the $X royalty rate and therefore the district court abused its discretion in failing to exclude this testimony.”
