SCOTUS To Address International Patent Damages in WesternGeco LLC (Schlumberger) v. ION Geophysical Corp.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in WesternGeco LLC (Schlumberger) v. ION Geophysical Corp. The key question before the Court is whether lost profits incurred outside of the United States are recoverable in patent infringement cases.
Under the Patent Act of 1952, when a patent owner prevails in an infringement action, “the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” Such damages may include lost profits that the patent owner would have earned but for the infringement. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U.S. 536, 552-553 (1886).
Issues in WesternGeco LLC (Schlumberger) v. ION Geophysical Corp.
WesternGeco developed and patented technology used in geological surveys to search for oil and gas under the ocean floor. In late 2007, ION Geophysical Corp. began selling a competing survey system. ION shipped components of its system from its Louisiana warehouse to surveying companies abroad for those companies to combine the components into a surveying system. Equipped with ION’s system, ION’s customers would compete directly with WesternGeco for survey contracts.
WesternGeco sued ION for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(f). Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), it is an act of patent infringement to supply “components of a patented invention,” “from the United States,” knowing or intending that the components be combined “outside of the United States,” in a manner that “would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States.”
The jury found ION liable for patent infringement and awarded damages, which included a $12.5 million royalty component and a $93.4 million lost profits component. The district court upheld the verdict.
Despite affirming ION was liable for infringement under § 271(f), the majority of a divided panel of Federal Circuit held that WesternGeco was not entitled to lost profits. The court of appeals reasoned that even when Congress has overridden the presumption against extraterritorial application of the law in creating liability, the presumption must be applied a second time to restrict damages. The dissenters disagreed with the interpretation, arguing that it created a “near-absolute bar to the consideration of a patentee’s foreign lost profits [that] is contrary to the precedent both of this court and was rejected by the Federal Circuit of the Supreme Court.”
After WesternGeco’s petition for rehearing en banc was rejected by the Federal Circuit, it appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The specific question the Court has agreed to consider is:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)?
The Court has scheduled oral arguments in this case for April 16, 2018(with Justice Alito being recused). A decision is expected before the term ends in June. We will continue to track the progress of this case and will post updates as they become available.
If you have any questions about the case, please contact us
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Supreme Court to Address International Patent Damages
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
SCOTUS To Address International Patent Damages in WesternGeco LLC (Schlumberger) v. ION Geophysical Corp.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in WesternGeco LLC (Schlumberger) v. ION Geophysical Corp. The key question before the Court is whether lost profits incurred outside of the United States are recoverable in patent infringement cases.
Under the Patent Act of 1952, when a patent owner prevails in an infringement action, “the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” Such damages may include lost profits that the patent owner would have earned but for the infringement. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U.S. 536, 552-553 (1886).
Issues in WesternGeco LLC (Schlumberger) v. ION Geophysical Corp.
WesternGeco developed and patented technology used in geological surveys to search for oil and gas under the ocean floor. In late 2007, ION Geophysical Corp. began selling a competing survey system. ION shipped components of its system from its Louisiana warehouse to surveying companies abroad for those companies to combine the components into a surveying system. Equipped with ION’s system, ION’s customers would compete directly with WesternGeco for survey contracts.
WesternGeco sued ION for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(f). Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), it is an act of patent infringement to supply “components of a patented invention,” “from the United States,” knowing or intending that the components be combined “outside of the United States,” in a manner that “would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States.”
The jury found ION liable for patent infringement and awarded damages, which included a $12.5 million royalty component and a $93.4 million lost profits component. The district court upheld the verdict.
Despite affirming ION was liable for infringement under § 271(f), the majority of a divided panel of Federal Circuit held that WesternGeco was not entitled to lost profits. The court of appeals reasoned that even when Congress has overridden the presumption against extraterritorial application of the law in creating liability, the presumption must be applied a second time to restrict damages. The dissenters disagreed with the interpretation, arguing that it created a “near-absolute bar to the consideration of a patentee’s foreign lost profits [that] is contrary to the precedent both of this court and was rejected by the Federal Circuit of the Supreme Court.”
After WesternGeco’s petition for rehearing en banc was rejected by the Federal Circuit, it appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The specific question the Court has agreed to consider is:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)?
The Court has scheduled oral arguments in this case for April 16, 2018(with Justice Alito being recused). A decision is expected before the term ends in June. We will continue to track the progress of this case and will post updates as they become available.
If you have any questions about the case, please contact us
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
