Since the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, increasingly large portions of the patentee population have no realistic expectation of securing injunctive relief against adjudicated infringers. This judicially imposed quasi-compulsory licensing regime induces well-resourced infringers to decline a license, appropriate patented technology, and negotiate the terms of use through litigation. Costly and protracted litigation is unlikely to adequately remunerate the patent owner whenever infringers have greater litigation resources, lower opportunity costs, and limited expectations of enhanced damages, which can induce the patent owner to settle for an amount that undervalues its technology. These litigation and settlement dynamics are illustrated through case studies of “holdout” tactics employed by well-resourced infringers in recent litigations involving standard-essential patents. To correct for the underdeterrence and undercompensation effects inherent to a no-injunction regime, it is proposed that courts enhance damages by an appropriately calibrated multiplier in all infringement litigations in which injunctive relief is not a practically available remedy.

This chapter discusses the law and policy of monetary awards — including exemplary damages and litigation cost recoveries — that go beyond the compensatory damages to which prevailing parties in patent litigation are normally entitled. Up to treble damages are authorized in the United States for knowing infringement, but attorney fees are awarded only in exceptional cases. The rest of the world tends toward the opposite: Attorney fees are awarded as a matter of course, but punitive damages are generally prohibited as against public policy.This chapter discusses the theory, law, and policy of enhanced damages and attorney fee awards in the United States, Europe, and Asia. While the availability of enhanced damages and fees can bring accused infringers that might otherwise “hold out” to the table, care must also be taken to ensure that it does not discourage productive learning from patents or challenges to overbroad and vague patents. Rather than endorse any single set of doctrinal rules, there is a recommendation for further research into a number of unanswered questions about current and potential future configurations, in order to inform future policymaking.