Amy E. Proctor

LOS ANGELES - Proctor specializes in developing accurate estimates of patented inventions' economic value to calculate damages.

To do that, she uses the scientific method, econometric analysis and financial modeling. With that interdisciplinary approach, she has helped obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in actual payments for patent owners.

Last year, her methods persuaded a West Texas jury to award more than $2 billion in damages to Irell client VSLI Technology, Inc. in a lawsuit accusing Intel Corp. of infringing two patents. Judge Alan D. Albright finalized the judgment at $2.3 billion this past April. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, 6:21-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex., filed April 11, 2019).

In that case, Proctor and her colleagues devised some "custom testing of the patented invention's value and then quantified that in dollars," she said. One of the two patents shows how to boost the speed and efficiency of a computer chip by moving its speed and power management system from external software to an on-chip controller. The controller can request shifts in speed almost immediately, she said, which "makes the chip much more adaptable and nimble."

To calculate the invention's worth, they first applied the scientific method to measure its technological value. Relying in part on Intel's own internal models and testing, they turned the on-chip controller on and off and compared overall efficiency.

Next, they and an economist used econometrics to determine the incremental value, in dollars and cents, of the patent's speed boost. "We ended up building a custom model based on millions and millions of data points" that correlated chip features with chip prices across many Intel products.

Proctor is using a very similar approach to calculate the value of another VSLI patent for another trial against Intel set for November. But the testing required is specific to each patent. "That's one of the fun things about it," she said. "For each individual patent, we get to dig in and figure out what makes that specific invention valuable and let that drive the damages strategy."

All this may sound complicated, but before becoming a lawyer, Proctor was a physicist who researched how to measure quantum forces.

Now for Irell, she also co-leads the firm's unusual in-house technical analysis laboratory. The lab can tackle many tasks, including microscopy, teardowns, circuit analysis, computer testing and AIdriven database applications. It can analyze prior art in a patent case or 3D print a super-sized model of a minuscule medical device as a trial demonstrative.

Irell uses the lab not just for patent matters, but in all kinds of cases "where there's some kind of scientific principle that we can bring to bear help make things easier for our clients," she said.

These days, the non-patent cases even include work for the Innocence Project when its attorneys are faced with dubious scientific evidence that may not be rigorous or reliable. "They'll send it to us, and then we'll dig in... and then help the team at the Innocence Project understand what the flaws are," she said.

"We take the science component of what we do really seriously, and we're always looking for ways to apply the tools that are available in the science world to solving our clients' problems in the legal world."