Royalty Report: Electrical & Electronics, Telecommunications Equip, Drugs – Collection: 29584


Curated Royalty Rate Report
Category: Technology Licenses, Created On: 2022-04-28, Record Count: 14


This collection of transactions and supporting information was developed using our AI algorithm to curate similar royalty reports into a cohesive collection to support your licensing, transfer pricing or other transaction scenarios where documented royalty rates and/or deal terms are important.
Category: Technology Licenses
Created On: 2022-04-28
Record Count: 14

Primary Industries

  • Electrical & Electronics
  • Telecommunications Equip
  • Drugs
  • Medical
  • Device
  • Telecommunications Svcs & Equip
  • Cancer
  • Therapeutic
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Semiconductors
  • Computers & Office Equipment
  • RAM
  • Disease
  • Internet
  • Advertising
  • Specialty
  • Delivery
  • Scientific & Technical Instruments
  • Utilities Svcs
  • Biotechnology
  • Software
  • Technical Know How
  • Surgical

IPSCIO Report Record List

Below you will find the records curated into this collection.  This summary includes the complete licensed property description so that you can review and determine if this collection covers the topics, technology or transaction type that is relevant for your needs.  The full report will include all relevant deal data such as the royalty base, agreement date, term description, royalty rates and other deal terms.  For reference, here is a sample of a full IPSCIO curated royalty rate report: Sample Report

IPSCIO Record ID: 29584

License Grant
The District Court entered final judgment in the case. Licensor, claims that we infringed certain U.S. patents related to an electronic surface mount package, and is seeking injunctive relief and damages.
License Property
The jury returned a verdict ruling in favor of Licensor and found that Licensee willfully infringed on three different patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 5,656,985; 6,297,720; and 6,344,785.

In addition, although the District Court granted Licensor's motion for a permanent injunction against the eight product groups subject to the jury verdict, the District Court granted Licensee's emergency motion to stay the injunction for 90 days through October 15, 2013.

Field of Use
The rights granted apply to the electronics industry.

IPSCIO Record ID: 1197

License Grant
A large semiconductor company was successful in a lawsuit against another company for infringement of its SDR SDRAM and DDR SDRAM related patents.

Specifically, the jury found that each of the ten selected patent claims was supported by the written description, and was not anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art; therefore, none of the patent claims were invalid. The jury also found that licensee infringed all eight of the patent claims for which the jury was asked to determine infringement; the court had previously determined on summary judgment that licensee infringed the other two claims at issue in the trial.

IPSCIO Record ID: 3091

License Grant
The parties entered into a settlement and License Agreement whereby all claims were resolved and the Company obtained the rights to certain patents in and related to the litigation including rights to U.S. Reissue Patent REI 41,884, as well as all foreign counterparts, all of which expire in 2016.

With the settlement, Licensee will pay Licensor a one-time fee and the Licensor will not receive any additional payments for sales of Abraxane®, or any other nab®-Paclitaxel product in the United States or globally. Licensee will acquire a fully-paid up, exclusive, world-wide license to select Licensor's U.S. and foreign patents for Abraxane®.

License Property
Prior to the settlement, on July 19, 2006, Licensor filed a lawsuit against the predecessor entity of Licensee in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Licensee willfully infringed two of its patents by making, using and selling the Abraxane® brand drug. Licensor sought unspecified damages and an injunction. In response, Licensee contended that it did not infringe the Licensor patents and that the Licensor patents are invalid and unenforceable. Before trial, Licensor dropped its claim that Licensee infringed one of the two asserted patents. Licensor also dropped its request for an injunction as to the remaining patent. On June 13, 2008, after a trial with respect to the remaining patent, a jury ruled that Licensee had infringed that patent, that Licensee’s infringement was not willful, and that the patent was valid and enforceable.

At issue was Licensee’s alleged infringement of Licensor’s patent for the nanoparticulate formulation of the breast cancer drug Abraxane.

A federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware agreed with that contention, and ordered the Company Licensee to pay an upfront fee and ongoing royalty.

Field of Use
Abraxane® for injectable suspension (paclitaxel protein-bound particles for injectable suspension) (albumin-bound) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in January 2005, for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and, as of December 2010, was approved for marketing in 42 countries.

IPSCIO Record ID: 3010

License Grant
The Company, an operating subsidiary of Acacia, received a $12.4 million final judgment stemming from its May 2009 trial verdict and corresponding $6.6 million damages award in its patent infringement lawsuit with Licensee.  The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas awarded enhanced damages for willful infringement of $4.5 million. The District Court also awarded prejudgment interest of $1.1 million, as well as supplemental damages, bringing the total award to approximately $12.4 million.
License Property
IMVironments or IMVs are interactive backgrounds that you can add to your IM conversations.
Field of Use
The Field of Use apply to the IM market.

IPSCIO Record ID: 29094

License Grant
A  jury ruled in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that the Licensee had infringed a patent owned by the Irish Licensor in relation to the application of NanoCrystal® technology.
License Property
NanoCrystal technology can improve the bioavailability of drugs by transforming them into nanometer-sized particles that can be used to create more effective and convenient dosage forms such as tablets, capsules, liquids, and powders. The Licensee has announced its intention to appeal the ruling. Consequently, pending final resolution of this matter, no settlement amount has been recognized in the interim financial statements.

IPSCIO Record ID: 2991

License Grant
Trial in the Company's U.S. case based on the Kastenhofer patent in Federal District Court in California concluded in October 2007 with a jury finding that the patent was invalid. The licensee was found to infringed a patent covering features of the chemically treated and multi-layered guide wire tubes that enable catheters to slide into place. The jury also found for patent owner on its counterclaim that sale by the Company of its balloon catheters and stent delivery systems infringe owner's Fontirroche patent. The Court has denied the Company's post trial motions.
License Property
Fontirroche patents pertain to designs for balloon catheters and stent delivery systems.

IPSCIO Record ID: 453

License Grant
Court dictated damages in a willful infringement case relative to technology used in hand-held meter-reading devices for electrical, gas and water utilities.  Both parties are from the U.S.

IPSCIO Record ID: 26276

License Grant
A Judgement by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in Boston has issued an initial decision in the case of  U.S. Patent No. 6,410,516 , is valid and infringed by licensee's sale of Evista(R) and Xigris(R).  

This case was tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court from April 10, 2006 through April 28, 2006. After deliberations, on May 4, 2006, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs by finding that the NF-kB ‘516 Claims asserted in the lawsuit are valid and infringed by Lilly through sales of Evista and Xigris in the United States.  One defense regarding validity was not submitted to the jury and was instead the subject of a bench trial, as addressed below. The jury awarded damages to the Plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $65.2 million, based on the jury’s determination of a reasonable royalty rate of 2.3% to be paid by Lilly to the Plaintiffs based on U.S. sales of Evista and Xigris from the date of the filing of the lawsuit on June 25, 2002 through February 28, 2006. The jury awarded further damages on an ongoing basis, in amounts to be determined, equal to 2.3% of U.S. sales of Evista and Xigris through the year 2019, when the patent expires. If the verdict is upheld, damages paid by Lilly will be applied first to reimburse us for any unreimbursed legal fees and expenses relating to the litigation. We will receive 91% of the remainder, and the co-plaintiffs will receive 9%.

The dispute involved licensor's U.S. patent covering methods of treating disease by regulating NF-kappa B cell-signaling activity, and jurors awarded damages to licensor and its co-plaintiffs.  Licensee plans first to ask the judge to set aside the jury's verdict regarding Evista and Xigris and then to appeal, if necessary.

Field of Use
Evista is used to treat or prevent osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. It is also used to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women who have osteoporosis or who are at risk of invasive breast cancer.

IPSCIO Record ID: 28463

License Grant
A U.S. District Court jury in Arizona found that certain of W.L. Gore Associates Inc. ePTFE vascular grafts and stent-grafts infringe the company's patent number 6,436,135.  The jury also found that Gore willfully infringed the patent. In a second phase of the trial, the court ruled that Gore failed to prove that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

IPSCIO Record ID: 3896

License Grant
Judgment was entered against a telecomm company that it has infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,985,748, the patent is not invalid, and licensee must pay approximately $12M in damages, which includes past damages through May 2007 based on a post-issuance royalty.

The final judgment does not account for any continued infringement by licensee after the May 2007 jury verdict. Accounting for any damages arising after the jury verdict will be addressed later by the Court, based on the outcome of any appeal in the case. The Court also permanently enjoined and restrained licensee from further infringement.

License Property
The case was originally filed on July 12, 2006, against licensee for infringement related to U.S. patent No. 6,985,748, Inter-Carrier Short Messaging Service Providing Phone Number Only Experience ('the '748 patent'), issued to licensor. U.S. Patent No. 7,430,425, which shares the same priority date as the '748 patent, issued on September 30, 2008 adding claims describing a method for inter-carrier digital message with user data payload messaging, and on November 26, 2008 U.S. Patent No. 6,658,260, which is the original patent issued on which the '748 patent is based, was allowed for reissuance.

IPSCIO Record ID: 5427

License Grant
The jury rendered a verdict that we infringed the nCube `804 patent.

A Delaware District Court jury unanimously upheld nCUBE's patent for VOD delivery and found that SeaChange willfully infringed the patent related to communication between a server and a set-top box, filed in 1998.

License Property
Patented technology that concerns a unique video server architecture specially suited for VOD delivery, allowing the video server to provide scalable video services to all service providers, while requiring only minimal changes to the video server in order to make it compatible with the existing systems.

IPSCIO Record ID: 26011

License Grant
The memorandum of understanding was signed by the Company and Halo with regard to this lawsuit, whereby the Company has agreed to pay Halo a royalty on past sales.  The plaintiff claimed that the Company had infringed its patents covering certain surface mount discrete magnetic products made by the Company.  Halo has initiated lawsuits to stop the unauthorized use of its proprietary packages for surface mount magnetic components

IPSCIO Record ID: 1341

License Grant
The Licensor filed a consolidated patent infringement suit against the Licensee in fiscal 2010 and after a nearly three week trial that ended October 6, 2011, the jury reached a partial verdict involving two out of the six patents.

The Court determined that one of the patents (U.S. Patent 7,058,150) [the ‘150 patent] had been infringed by the Licensee, and the jury rendered an advisory verdict to the Court that the ‘150 patent is not invalid, and awarded approximately $0.4 million in damages related to that patent.

The jury reached a unanimous verdict of non-infringement on another patent relating to the Licensees Fibre Channel switch products.

A mistrial was declared on the remaining four patents for which no unanimous verdict was reached. Subsequent to the trial, the Court issued orders consistent with the advisory verdicts of invalidity, and also issued an order that one of the four remaining patents (U.S. Patent 7,471,691) [the'691 patent] had been infringed by us.

On April 4, 2012, we filed a notice of appeal with respect to the ‘150 patent and the ‘691 patent infringement findings.

On March 16, 2012, the Court issued a decision concerning injunctive relief for the ‘150 and the ‘691 patents.

The decision provided, in part, for a sunset period of 18 months relating to the ‘150 patent, starting on October 12, 2011.

The sunset period allows the Licensee to sell the affected products to existing customers for specific customer devices, subject to limitations relating to when the products had been qualified and when certain firm orders had been placed.

The decision further provided for a sunset period of 18 months relating to the ‘691 patent, starting on December 16, 2011.

License Property
The affected products for the ‘150 patent include the BE2, BE3, XE201, and SOC 442 ASICs, products containing them, and products not colorably different from them.

The affected products for the ‘691 patent include the SOC 320, SOC 422, and SOC 442 ASICs, products containing them, and products not colorably different from them.

The decision further provided for Licensee to pay a royalty on all sales of such products made during The sunset period. The decision also clarified that foreign sales (outside the U.S.) are beyond the scope of the suit.

IPSCIO Record ID: 714

License Grant
Licensor, an individual, hereby grants to Licensee a world-wide exclusive, nontransferable, personal, sublicenseable only to those companies against which Licensee enforces the Rentrop Patents pursuant to this Agreement, revocable, royalty-bearing license under the Rentrop Patents to make, use, offer for sale, import, sell, or otherwise dispose of Licensed Catheters.
Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee a world-wide exclusive, nontransferable, personal, subLicenseable, as a result of the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Litigation was tried to the jury, resulting in a jury verdict on December 8, 2006 of infringement of claims 1, 8, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,673,064. The License granted under this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect from the effective date until January 4, 2020.
License Property
Licensor is the sole inventor of and owns all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,440,125 and 6,673,064 and any applications claiming priority thereto.
Disclaimer: The information gathered from RoyaltySource® database was sourced from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR Filings and other public records. While we believe the sources to be reliable, this does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. Further, the information is supplied as general guidance and is not intended to represent or be a substitute for a detailed analysis or professional judgment. This information is for private use only and may not be resold or reproduced without permission.