Fundamental Innovations Systems International, LLC (“Fundamental”) sued Anker Innovations Ltd. and Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a Ankerdirect (collectively, “Anker”) in the District of Delaware in March 2021, alleging infringement of the following four patents concerning USB charging technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,239,111, 8,624,550, 7,453,233, and 6,936,936.
Following a four-day trial in March 2025, the jury found that Anker infringed the patents and awarded damages of $13,638,219. Fundamental’s damages case relied in part on its licensing practice of beginning negotiations at $0.50 per unit and on evidence that Anker allegedly realized approximately $2.68 per unit in cost savings by using the patented technology rather than a noninfringing alternative. Id. at 17–20.
Anker argued that the $0.50 rate was merely an opening offer set by Fundamental’s internal policy, which cannot alone establish the rate the parties would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation under Omega Pats., LLC v. CalAmp Corp., 13 F.4th 1361, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Id. at 17. The Court disagreed, finding that evidence showed more than a bare internal policy: Fundamental would begin licensing negotiations at $0.50 per unit, discussed cost savings with prospective licensees, and could adjust the opening rate based on various considerations. Id. at 17–20.
Anker also argued that Fundamental’s $2.68-per-unit cost-savings theory failed because enumeration was not a commercially acceptable noninfringing alternative, contending instead that the savings were about a penny per unit. Anker’s own interrogatory response and expert testimony, however, supported that enumeration was acceptable. Id. at 19–20. Because the $0.50 rate fell within the range the parties advocated, the Court deemed the jury’s choice was permissible. Id. at 21.
The problem, however, was apportionment.
The Court found that Fundamental had not presented sufficient evidence separating the value of the patented technology from the value of features unrelated to the patents. Fundamental’s damages expert acknowledged that the accused USB adapters had conventional features unrelated to the patents and that he had not performed an analysis apportioning between patented and unpatented features. Id. at 22.
Fundamental argued that the $0.50 rate nevertheless reflected “built-in-apportionment” because it was “already specific to the patents-in-suit.” Id. The Court disagreed, noting that the $0.50 was “merely an opening offer” and that Fundamental had not shown that comparable licensees actually accepted that rate or paid a similar amount for comparable licenses. Id. at 23.
The Court also rejected Fundamental’s argument that its “cost-savings” approach obviated the need for apportionment as a matter of law. Discussing Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Court explained that cost-savings damages evidence can be relevant to valuing the patented technology, however, that does not mean “evidence of cost savings makes the concept of apportionment moot.” Id. at 26–27.
Because the record did not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for determining the incremental value attributable to the patented technology, the Court granted Anker Innovations’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and reduced the $13.6 million damages award to zero. In doing so, the Court cited the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 156 F.4th 1289, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2025), which stated that “the patent damages statute, 35 U.S.C. § 284, does not require an award of damages if none are proven that adequately tie a dollar amount to the infringing acts.” Id. at 28. (See prior post on Rex Medical.)
The Court also declined to order a new damages trial. Because the jury had been instructed to award only damages proved by Fundamental, the Court reasoned that if the Federal Circuit were to disagree with its ruling on the damages verdict and find substantial evidence supporting the verdict, there would be no reason to retry damages. Id. at 27–29.
The decision reinforces Rex Medical’s warning that inadequate apportionment can be fatal to a damages award—there, resulting in nominal damages, and here, no damages at all. It also underscores that evidence relevant to a hypothetical negotiation, such as licensing practices, cost savings, and noninfringing alternatives, must still be tied to the incremental value of the patented technology.