Gideon Korrell on 6 Ways Jiaxing v. CH Lighting Raises the Bar for Damages Experts
                     Gideon 
oKno r6r eWllays 
Jiaxing v. CH 
Lighting Raises 
the Bar for 
Damages 
Experts
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Jiaxing Super 
Lighting v. CH Lighting (July 28, 2025) sends 
a clear message: patent damages experts 
are being held to much stricter standards.
The case covered three big issues invalidity, 
infringement, and damages. But the most 
important lesson comes from the damages 
ruling, where the court leaned heavily on its 
earlier decision in EcoFactor v. Google. As 
Gideon Korrell explains, courts can no 
longer accept loose or assumption-based 
damages opinions.
1. EcoFactor Must Be 
Applied Not Ignored
The Federal Circuit made it clear that district 
courts must seriously review damages 
testimony under Rule 702. It is not enough for 
a judge to say an expert is “qualified” or 
“experienced.”
Courts must explain why the expert’s method 
makes sense and why it fits the facts of the 
case. If that analysis is missing, the damages 
award is at risk.
2. Portfolio Licenses 
Need Careful 
Breakdown
Super Lighting’s expert relied on portfolio 
licenses, which cover many patents at 
once. That is common but now risky.
The court said experts must show how 
much value comes from the specific 
patents being sued on. Simply saying that 
a few important patents “drove the deal” is 
not enough.
Experts must clearly break down the 
license and connect the royalty to the 
asserted patents.
3. Company Opinions 
Are Not Proof
The expert relied on what Super Lighting 
employees said about which patents mattered 
most. The Federal Circuit rejected this.
Statements from the patent owner are not 
independent evidence. Courts now expect real 
proof documents, deal records, or data that 
shows why certain patents were valuable.
Assumptions and internal opinions do not meet 
Rule 702 standards.
4. One Damages 
Number Can Destroy 
the Entire Award
The jury awarded one lump-sum damages 
figure for all three patents. When two 
patents were sent back for a new trial, the 
entire damages award had to be thrown out.
As Gideon Korrell notes, this shows a serious 
risk in multi-patent cases. If damages are 
not separated by patent, any error can wipe 
out everything.
5. Judges Must 
Act as 
Gatekeepers
The Federal Circuit rejected the idea that 
weak damages opinions can simply be 
tested at trial.
Judges must screen damages experts 
carefully before trial. If the expert’s 
method does not reliably link the royalty 
to the patent value, the testimony should 
not reach the jury at all.
6. Experience Alone 
Is No Longer Enough
One of the biggest takeaways is that 
courts now expect data, documents, and 
clear reasoning.
Experts can no longer rely mainly on past 
experience or general industry practices. 
They must show exactly how they 
reached their numbers and tie them to 
real evidence.
As Gideon Korrell explains, damages 
law is becoming more factual and less 
speculative.
Thank 
You