Washington, D.C. - The Innovation Alliance today released a survey of jury damage awards in 93 patent infringement cases in 2005, 2006 and 2007, which demonstrates that there is no pattern of runaway jury verdicts in patent cases. It also confirms that trial judges routinely review jury verdicts and set aside awards that are not supported by the evidence.

The paper -- Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Jury Damage Verdicts in Patent Infringement Cases, 2005-2007 -- reviews the documents filed in 93 jury verdict-patent cases identified by Professor Paul Janicke of the University of Houston Law School. This review is used to determine if the award in each case was for a reasonable royalty, lost profits, or a combination of both. The analysis also presents what happened in each case after the jury returned the verdict, disclosing the trial judge’s decision on post trial motions attacking the verdict and whether the verdict was challenged on appeal.

The analysis results in the following findings:

• There is no pattern of runaway jury verdicts in patent cases;

• The judges are reviewing the juries’ decisions; and,

• Georgia Pacific is under attack in Congress but not in the courts.

The paper concludes, “As efforts at patent reform move forward, we should keep asking what are the problems that need solving. In the case of improving patent quality, there is an opportunity to improve the quality of patent examination prior to issuance. As for litigation reform, and specifically the notion that the principles in Georgia Pacific are not working, this survey of jury verdicts suggests we may have a solution in search of a problem.”

A copy of Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Jury Damage Verdicts in Patent Infringement Cases, 2005-2007 can be found on the Innovation Alliance website, www.innovationalliance.org.