4. 发明专利
在美国，发明专利侵权案中，侵权人赔偿其获利给权利人已经不再作为一种法律认可的侵权救济，Account of profits或disgorgement of the infringer’s profits在1946年的Patent Act中已经被取消。因此，在美国发明专利侵权案中，原告只能主张原告的损失作为救济，即上文所述的一般原则：Reasonable royalty或者Lost profits。
当然，被告获利仍旧可以作为计算原告损失时的考虑因素，比如计算合理许可费时，被告侵权产品的售价、利润等都可能会作为考虑的因素。
(1) 合理许可费（Reasonable royalty）
第一种方法是采用使用相关专利的公认的许可费（established royalty），但这种情况很少见。
第二种方法是采用经典案例Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)所采用的15个考虑因素来决定合理的许可费：
(1) The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty.
(2) The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit.
(3) The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive; or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold.
(4) The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain his patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly.
(5) The commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee, such as, whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business; or whether they are inventor and promotor.
(6) The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of his non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales.
(7) The duration of the patent and the term of the license.
(8) The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity.
(9) The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had
been used for working out similar results.
(10) The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention.
(11) The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention; and any evidence probative of the value of that use.
(12) The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions.
(13) The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer.
(14) The opinion testimony of qualified experts.
(15) The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount which a prudent licensee—who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention—would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patentee who was willing to grant a license
具体的计算标准，过往的案例法形成了较为复杂的考虑因素，可简单总结为如下：
计算公式简单来说如下：
Reasonable Royalty = Royalty Base (in dollars) × Royalty Rate (percentage)
其中，Royalty Base = Units × Dollars/unit
法院一般采用“假设权利人与侵权人在第一次侵权时所可能谈判出的许可费”法 （“Hypothetical Negotiation At Time Of First Infringement” Methodology）确定许可费计算的起始时间和具体数额。具体而言，“假设谈判法”要考量的核心经济问题是，在一个假设的侵权前谈判中，与使用非侵权替代品相比，侵权人使用专利技术后预计的盈利潜力是什么。如果专利技术的潜在使用者期望在不使用专利技术的情况下在未来获得 X 利润，并且通过使用专利技术获得 X + Y 利润，从表面上看，支付超过 Y 的许可费是不合理的，见Aqua Shield (Fed. Cir. 12/22/14)，当然法院也会考虑被告可能会由于授权费而提高产品售价。
- 首先确定计算基数（royalty base）：
（a）一般原则：实施专利的最小可销售单位
一般的原则是许可费应该基于‘实施专利的最小可销售单位smallest salable patent-practicing unit’，而非整个侵权产品，见Laserdynamics (Fed. Cir. 08/30/12)，在本案中，法院拒绝合理的许可费基于笔记本电脑收入（revenue）的百分比，而应该基于与光驱（optical disk drive）相关的收入，光驱被认为是实施专利的最小可销售单位。所谓的“实施专利的最小可销售单位”指与要求保护的发明有密切关系的最小可销售侵权单元 （the smallest salable infringing unit with close relation to the claimed invention），见Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 609 F. Supp 2d 279 (NDNY, March 30, 2009)。
在确定了“实施专利的最小可销售单位”之后，下一步就是进行分摊（Apportionment），即计算基数需限制在产品销售收入中和专利特征（patented feature）相关的部分，不能包含非侵权特征部分，如果“实施专利的最小可销售单位”中包含非侵权特征，还需进行进一步的分摊（Apportionment），见Finjan (Fed. Cir. 01/10/18)。
（b）一般原则的例外情形：“Entire Market Value” Rule
如果可以证明专利特征（patented feature）推动了消费者对整个多组件产品的需求，则专利权人可能会获得按整个产品市场价值的一定比例的损害赔偿金，见LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. 694 F.3d 51 (2012)。只有当专利特征创造了客户需求的基础或实质上创造了产品各个部件的价值时，专利权人才可以根据整个被诉侵权产品的市场价值来评估损害赔偿，见VirnetX (Fed. Cir. 09/16/14)。
B．其次确定许可费比例（royalty rate）
2011年之前曾经流行“25% rule”（侵权人向专利权人支付其运营利润的25%作为合理许可费），但是该规则已经在Uniloc USA Inc v Microsoft Corp 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)一案中被废除，因为过于简单粗暴。一般来说，需要结合Georgia-Pacific factors来确定royalty rate，其中第1-3项因素最重要，包括权利人针对涉案专利已经在第三方确定和收取的许可费比例，侵权人使用其他类似的、可比较专利的许可费比例。
其他的参考因素还包括但不限于：其他判决、原被告双方的争议关系背景、专利产品相比旧产品的提升程度（第9个Georgia-Pacific factor）、侵权人利用涉案专利的程度（第11个Georgia-Pacific factor）等。
此外，针对royalty rate的专家意见不需要提供一个确定的数字，可以是一个范围，比如在Bayer (Fed. Cir. 03/01/21)案中，专家意见提供了5.1% – 42.4%的范围，最后陪审团确定了17.78%的比例，总计赔偿额$155 M。
(2) 专利权人Lost profits
在经典案例Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)中，US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit提出了认定专利权人是否可以主张Lost profits的四个考虑因素，即专利权人应证明以下四个条件：
(1) demand for the patented product,
(2) absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes,
第(1)和第(2)个条件又可称为But-for test，见Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)。
(3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and
(4) the amount of the profit he would have made.
一般来说，不管是Reasonable royalty，还是Lost profits，美国法院可能会支持apportionment between patented and unpatented features，见Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 但是，在2017年Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA Inc. (2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556)一案中，Federal Circuit进一步明确了apportionment between patented and unpatented features的适用情形，并非所有情形都有apportionment between patented and unpatented features。