000415	03apportionment_wmp_a_16.wma
000000	MICHAEL GORMAN:  Okay now that we've kind of laid the groundwork for the differences, I'd like to ask you all, is there any way you could talk a little bit more
000009	specifically on the Innovation Alliance's position on both willfulness and apportionment of damages as compared to that of the Coalition?
000016	It seems like there might be a gulf there between the two sides.
000019	TARANEH MAGHAME:  Sure, I think the gulf is probably more on the side of the apportionment of damages issue than the willfulness.
000029	Because the Innovation believes that there are certain things that can be done to improve the patent system and the ability of companies to enforce
000041	and get more certainty as to what the results are going to be.
000045	On the willfulness side, we certainly believe that we should continue to have treble damages.
000054	We should continue to allow for enhanced damages where a company is blatantly infringing a patent and knowingly doing so.
000102	But we don't have any issue with having better clarity with respect to what constitutes willful infringement.
000113	So on that front I think, like I said, there's less of a gulf.
000117	And that needs to be done deliberately.
000120	That needs to be done carefully.
000121	And we need to make sure that by giving it more clarity we're not allowing infringers to get away with more in terms of willful infringement
000132	and we continue to protect the patent rights of the plaintiffs.
000137	There is more of a gulf on the apportionment of damages issue.
000141	The Coalition for Patent Fairness has put forth language and supports language that specifies a very limited definition of how damages should be apportioned.
000200	Now if you look at the case law, we do have the seminal case of Georgia Pacific which has been used until now
000208	and continues to be used currently as far as I know to determine what reasonable royalties should be in any case.
000215	And that case lays out 15 factors.
000218	And the jury and Court is able to determine which of those factors are applicable in any particular case and to use those factors to figure out
000230	what a reasonable royalty should be in that case.
000232	Our issue with apportionment language that has been proposed to date is that it basically takes just about one of those factors and codifies it.
000245	Whereas we think we need a lot more flexibility to make sure that in determining a reasonable royalty, we've taken into account all of the factors that are relevant,
000254	not just the value for example of the particular patent that's been asserted, the particular component that's an issue,
000302	but for example the history of the royalties that the company has received on that patent and various other factors.
000309	So we believe that continuing with the Georgia Pacific factors is a good way to go.
000316	And if we do want to codify something, then we need to do more than what's been done right now in terms of the limitations.
000323	MICHAEL GORMAN:  Okay, all right.
000327	Derek's shaking his head.
000328	I don't think he has anything to add.