http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3820021/For+IT+Firms+Patent+Reform+Is+All+About+Money.htm

..............Mary Woodford, vice president of Cornerstone Research, presented a study her group conducted of some of the busiest patent venues in U.S. District Court.

Cases resolved by jury trial resulted in an average damages award of $21.6 million, compared to the average award at a bench trial of $3 million. Some districts were outliers, like the Eastern District of Texas, where a disproportionate number of patent cases are tried. The average jury-trial settlement in that venue is $54 million, according to Woodford, whose firm was a sponsor of Tuesday's IP symposium.

For the companies forced to defend their products against infringement charges often brought by "non-practicing entities," the seemingly arbitrary determination of damages awards is a vexing problem.

Martha Gooding, a partner at the firm Howrey LLP, which was also a sponsor of yesterday's event, said the erratic nature of damages awards often stems from confusion on the part of the jury, or from jury members swayed more by emotions than the legal criteria for determining awards.

"By the time jurors conclude you have infringed on a valid enforceable patent, they are in the mood to punish you," said Gooding. Ex-jurors in focus groups Howrey conducted often talked of granting steep awards as a way of striking a blow against "corporate greed," irrespective of the legal dictates for awarding judgments. "Often jurors equate infringement with theft or robbery, even when there's no evidence of copying," she said.

Other jury errors Howrey found include basing awards on the amount of gross revenue an infringing party was said to have earned from using the patent, rather than the net profits. Juries sometimes also tack on expenses like attorneys' fees, which the judge automatically adds to the award the jury turns in, leading to double payment, Gooding said.