Whether a plaintiff that proves that a patented feature creates the basis for customer demand for infringing products is entitled to patent damages based on the entire market value of the products, or whether the plaintiff must also prove that other features do not drive demand for the products

QUESTION PRESENTED The Patent Act guarantees a patentee “full compensation for ‘any damages’ he suffered as a result of the infringement.” General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 654-55 (1983) (citation omitted); see 35 U.S.C. § 284. When a product has multiple components, patent law generally calls for apportioning “the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features.” Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884). This Court has long held, however, that a patentee may be entitled to damages based on “the entire value of the whole machine,” when the patentee shows that the full value of the good “is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.” Jd. This is known as the “entire market value rule” or EMVR. In this case, a jury found that Respondents had willfully infringed patents owned by Power Integrations, Inc., that revolutionized the efficiency of power supply controller chips used in charging electronic devices such as cell phones. Following a separate trial on damages, the jury returned a special verdict finding that Power Integrations was entitled to damages based on the entire market value of the infringing products—power supply controller chips— because the patented technology “create[d] the basis for customer demand” for the products. App. 64a. On appeal, the Federal Circuit set the jury’s damages verdict aside. The court held that it was not enough for Power Integrations to show, as the jury found, that the patented feature drove customer demand for the infringing products. Rather, the court held, Power Integrations also was required to prove that the other product features did not drive ii demand. Id. at 24a-25a. Because the court believed that Power Integrations had not proven that negative, the Federal Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support invocation of the EMVR in calculating damages. Id. at 25a. The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff that proves that a patented feature creates the basis for customer demand for infringing products is entitled to patent damages based on the entire market value of the products, or whether the plaintiff must also prove that other features do not drive demand for the products.