Modern technology products are often covered by thousands of patents. Yet awards for a single component have averaged a surprisingly high 9.98% of the infringing product's price. To curb such disproportionate awards, the law insists that damages reflect the contribution made by the patent. But determining how to apportion damages in this way has proved to be elusive. One emerging technique that appears to offer rigor is conjoint analysis, a type of survey borrowed from the marketing world. This article explores the validity of the conjoint analysis technique by running two conjoint analysis surveys. Unfortunately, we found serious problems. First, the results of our surveys yielded irrationally high numbers. Most survey features suffered from bizarrely high valuations. Second, we demonstrate how experts can manipulate the results by selecting among a number of different ostensibly reasonable statistical choices and picking the one that yields the most desirable outcome. Based on these findings, we provide several recommendations. First, we argue that courts should not allow evidence of conjoint analysis to show the monetary value of specific features. However, we recognize that there is support for using conjoint analysis to provide relative valuations (i.e., feature A is worth significantly more than feature B). To the extent that courts permit this use, we suggest ways to ensure that experts employ the best science available. These recommendations include assuring that experts accurately depict variability in their results and requiring experts to “preregister” the approach they intend to use with the court.

中文翻译：

---

联合分析是否可靠地评估专利？

现代技术产品通常拥有数千项专利。然而，对单个组件的奖励平均高达侵权产品价格的 9.98%。为了遏制这种不成比例的裁决，法律坚持认为损害赔偿反映了专利的贡献。但事实证明，如何以这种方式分摊损害赔偿是难以捉摸的。一种似乎提供严谨性的新兴技术是联合分析，这是一种从营销界借用的调查。本文通过运行两个联合分析调查来探讨联合分析技术的有效性。不幸的是，我们发现了严重的问题。首先，我们的调查结果产生了不合理的高数字。大多数调查功能都受到了离奇的高估值的影响。第二，我们展示了专家如何通过在许多不同的表面上合理的统计选择中进行选择并选择产生最理想结果的一个来操纵结果。基于这些发现，我们提供了几项建议。首先，我们认为法院不应允许联合分析的证据显示特定特征的货币价值。然而，我们承认使用联合分析来提供相对估值是有支持的（即特征 A 的价值明显高于特征 B）。在法院允许这种使用的范围内，我们建议如何确保专家采用可用的最佳科学。这些建议包括确保专家准确描述其结果的可变性，并要求专家“预先注册”他们打算在法院使用的方法。