Please help me answers five questions at the end of this case. Thank you in advance.

Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 5, Issue 1, January - June, 2013 Compensatory Damages for Patent Infringement TEXAHOMA HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CASE Les Livingstone* Texahoma is a fast-growing state in the American Southwest. The fast growth makes it necessary for the Texahoma State Department of Highways (DOH) to construct new highways and widen existing highways. The DOH carries out highway construction by means of competitive bidding by qualified highway construction companies. One of the qualified highway construction companies is Salsa Inc. Salsa has developed and registered a patent for containing noise caused by highway construction. This noise is very loud, and DOH has to pay compensation to homeowners and businesses located near highway construction projects. The Salsa patent effectively contains construction noise, and significantly lowers the amount of compensation paid by DOH to the homeowners and businesses disturbed by the din of highway construction. The Salsa patent is for a containing wall that is built on both sides of a highway under construction. The containing wall is 16 feet high, and consists of reinforced concrete posts that are grooved to accept concrete panels with matching tongues. The patent covers the posts and panels as a product, and also their method of manufacture. The wall is permanent, and remains to reduce traffic noise after highway construction is completed. The noisewall patent was issued in year 1. Both the posts and the panels are manufactured onsite from molds into which are poured liquid concrete, reinforced by steel rebar. The posts are 24 feet long, with 8 feet inserted and concreted into post holes, and 16 feet protruding above ground. The posts are on 16 foot centers, and support the 16 by 16 foot panels. These Salsa walls are known as noisewalls. Since noisewalls have proven very effective, DOH highway construction specifications since year 2 have included sound muffling standards that noisewalls can meet, but which no competing product has been able to satisfy. When DOH introduced the sound muffling standards on January 1 of year 2, strong protests came from Salsa's highway construction competitors, who feared that they could no longer compete for contracts against Salsa, and would be forced out of business. DOH responded by pointing out that highway contractors still had several options. They could develop new noninfringing noisewalls that met the standards, or they could arrange for Salsa to be their subcontractor for the noisewall portion of highway contracts, or they could purchase licenses from Salsa to use the Salsa patent in exchange for paying an agreed royalty. This satisfied some contractors, but others were resentful, 234 Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 5, Issue 1, January - June, 2013 *The author is MBA Program Director at University of Maryland University College. and resolved not to be pushed into using Salsa as a subcontractor or licensor, or to spend money on R&D to invent new methods to muffle construction noise. Starting on June 30, year 3, some contractors won highway contracts by infringing the Salsa patent. Each time, Salsa sent lawyer's letters to the infringers to cease and desist. But none of these letters had any effect. In order to protect its patent rights, Salsa was compelled to sue the infringers. Salsa sued the infringers for lost profits from lost sales of noisewall due to infringement. Lost sales are sales made by infringers, but which Salsa as the patent owner should have made. Salsa's lawsuit filing also pointed out that the infringers had illegally sold noisewall at a competitive price, which was lower than the price that Salsa would have commanded as the sole supplier of noisewall. This price reduction is known by the term "price erosion." The lawsuit was filed on December 1, year 5 and the infringements ceased by December 31, of year 5. After the defendants filed their response, there were the usual written interrogatories, depositions of fact and expert witnesses and pretrial motions. The trial was scheduled to begin on June 1, year 6 and was expected to end on June 30, year 6. Therefore damages awarded by the court would be payable on June 30, year 6. So Salsa would not recover lost profits for years 3 through 5 until June 30, year 6. You have been asked by Salsa's lawyers to prepare its damage study to be filed with the court. For this engagement you have gathered the following information. Salsa Income Statements Cost Year Revenues -4 $21,193 -3 $15,878 -2 $14,471 -1 $12,056 0 $9,706 1 $14,386 2 $16,220 3 $9,091 4 $3,248 5 $7,761 Total $124,010 All figures in $'000, except except per square foot and percentages. Gross Gross Profit % SG&A* Pretax of Sales $18,387 $14,586 $12,880 $10,928 $8,593 $13,137 $13,857 $8,424 $2,792 $6,894 $110,478 Profit $2,806 $1,292 $1,591 $1,128 $1,113 $1,249 $2,363 $667 $456 $867 $13,532 of Sales 13.2% 8.1% 11.0% 9.4% 11.5% 8.7% 14.6% 7.3% 14.0% 11.2% 10.9% Expenses Profit $1,217 $1,589 $1,096 $196 $1,200 $391 $1,081 $47 $1,251 -$138 $1,166 $83 $1,022 $1,341 $1,061 -$394 $1,018 -$562 $1,123 -$256 $11,235 $2,297 235 Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 5, Issue 1, January - June, 2013 * SG&A = Selling, General and Administrative Salsa Income Statements (continued) Noisewall Year Revenue** -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 $987 4 $493 5 $732 Total $2,212 ** Noisewall Direct All figures in $'000, except except per square foot and percentages. Noisewall Noisewall Noisewall Noisewall Gross Gross Square Revenue per Cost Profit $648 $393 $587 $339 $100 $145 Profit % 34.3% 20.3% 19.8% Feet Square Foot 59 37 $16.73 $13.32 $13.07 The Salsa year 3 noisewall revenue is from a Texahoma highway contract awarded on February 12, year 3. Contracts With Infringing noisewalls All figures in '000, except percentages. Contract Total Total Total Total Award DOH Contract Contract Gross Gross Noisewall Date Contract Revenue Direct Cost Profit Profit % Revenue 6/29/03 20204 $38,371 $33,965 $4,406 11.5% $3,931 12/30/0 20788 $107,063 $97,702 $9,361 8.7% $10,373 3 1/02/04 20877 $33,398 $30,001 $3,397 10.2% $3,489 6/02/04 21215 $38,576 $34,867 $3,709 9.6% $3,977 1/03/05 21321 $678,690 $600,560 $78,130 11.5% $70,982 Total $896,098 $797,095 $99,003 11.0% $92,752 Contract Award DOH Noisewal l Direct Noisewall Noisewall Noisewall Noisewall Gross Gross Square Revenue per 236 Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 5, Issue 1, January - June, 2013 Date 6/29/03 12/30/0 3 1/02/04 6/02/04 1/03/05 Total Contrac t 20204 20788 Cost Profit Profit % Feet Square Foot $3,293 $8,183 $638 $2,190 16.2% 21.1% 301 801 $13.06 $12.95 20877 21215 21321 $2,731 $3,281 $56,421 $73,909 $758 $696 $14,561 $18,843 21.7% 17.5% 20.5% 20.3% 262 302 5,214 6,880 $13.32 $13.17 $13.61 $13.48 NOTE: Any damages awarded at trial for lost profits are subject to taxation. Therefore, when calculating damages, you need to do so on a before-tax basis. Salsa cost of equity since year 2 has been 16%, and cost of long-term debt since year 2 has been 12%. Salsa's tax rate is 35%.Salsa capital structure is 60% equity and 40% debt. The purpose of compensatory damages is to put the plaintiff back into the same financial position that would have been the case if no infringement had taken place. So calculation of compensatory damages requires an estimate of what did not actually happen because infringement prevented it from occurring. But how can we know what should have happened, but was prevented from happening? We can use information from periods before infringement occurred, because those periods were unaffected by infringement. This is known as the "before and after method." The law on patent infringement allow recovery of damages for lost profits on convoyed" sales. Convoyed sales are items that are usually sold along with the infringed product. For example, sales of desktop computers are usually accompanied by sales of computer monitors and printers. That makes sales of computer monitors and printers "convoyed" sales of desktop computers. By the same token, convoyed sales for cellphones are sales of car chargers, home chargers, earpieces and belt clips for cell phones. This approach is known as the "entire market value" rule. The Panduit1 test for lost profit by reason of patent infringement requires the plaintiff to show that the following conditions apply: 1) There is demand for the patented product. 2) Acceptable non-infringing substitutes for the patented product are available. 3) There is sufficient manufacturing and marketing capability to satisfy the demand. 4) There are reasonable computations of the profits that would have been earned, but for the infringement of the patented product. 1 Panduit Corp. vs. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F 2d 1152 (Sixth Circuit 1978). 237 Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 5, Issue 1, January - June, 2013 You may safely assume that all Panduit tests are fully satisfied. The Georgia-Pacific factors do not apply because lost profits are being sought, rather than a reasonable royalty. Assignment 1. Estimate damages for lost operating profit for years 3 through 5 from lost sales due to infringement as of June 30, year 6, which is the estimated date of the completion of the patent infringement trial. 2. Estimate damages for lost operating profit for years 3 through 5 from margin erosion as of June 30, year 6, which is the estimated date of the completion of the patent infringement trial. 3. Should there be damages for lost profits on "convoyed" sales in this case? This is a complex legal issue, and we are not asking you for a professional legal analysis. We simply want you to apply critical thinking as best you can. Explain your answer clearly and completely, with reasoning to support your points. 4. You should calculate lost profit damages on convoyed sales, so that the court can consider them, if it wishes. 5. Calculate the total value of all the damages as of June 30, year 6, which is the estimated date of the completion of the patent infringement trial. You may assume that profits are earned equally throughout the year, which is equivalent to assuming that each year's profits are earned on June 30 of that year. REFERENCE For background information on patent infringement damages and the relevant law, the following link is provided: http://www.cornerstone.com/files/Publication/d966ee4a-8495-46038168383ffeb7ed95/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/28f8ece0-38b2-4ab8-a7a95faa0574eb8c/Estimating%20Damages%20in%20Patent%20Infringement%20Cases.pdf 238 Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 5, Issue 1, January - June, 2013 239