- 25 -
expertise and that he would therefore rely on Mr. Lutzker's reports
as to those issues.
Essentially, Mr. Goldscheider adopted Mr. Lutzker's conclusions
that the Amoco patents were invalid and unenforceable and that
Powertex owned or at least had shop rights in such patents. He
determined that, due to such factors, Powertex received nothing of
value pursuant to the Tri-Podd license agreement and that the
appropriate royalty rate should be zero percent. As an alternative
position, Mr. Goldscheider determined that a 2-percent royalty may
be reasonable. He arrived at that figure by starting with the 5-
percent royalty rate he determined was applicable under the Sea-
Land/Powertex license of the Sea Bulk patents as of May 23, 1988.
He then described a hypothetical noninfringing alternative to the
Amoco liner and reasoned that, because the Amoco patents could be
easily circumvented by such an alternative, the royalty rate should
be less than half of the 5-percent rate applicable under the Sea-
Land/Powertex license of the Sea Bulk patents.
b. Petitioner’s Experts
i. Donald S. Chisum
Professor Chisum currently teaches at Santa Clara University
School of Law. From 1969 through 1996, he was a member of the
faculty at the University of Washington School of Law. Since 1970,
he has regularly written and lectured on the subject of intellectual
property and patent law, and he is the sole author of a multiple
volume reference treatise, Patents: A Treatise on the Law of
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011