The opinion discusses several damages issues, including extraterritorial reach of patent damages, specifically limitations of that reach. It also discusses the exclusion of a damages expert who opined that the royalty rate should be 4 times the price of the accused items. Specifically the CAFC noted that the exclusion of the expert was merited given that:
This case provides a potential cap on damages and thus a response to Stickle v. Heublein where damages may be higher than an infringer’s profit and higher than the price set on the infringing product.