Executive Summary

The patent dispute between SmartSky Networks and Gogo Business Aviation illustrates the difference between proving infringement and proving economic value. In November 2025, a jury found that Gogo willfully infringed four SmartSky patents involving air-to-ground aviation connectivity and awarded approximately $22.7 million in damages. In September 2026, the court left the infringement, validity, and willfulness findings intact but reduced the damages award to zero because SmartSky had not adequately connected its calculations to the infringing products or the value contributed by the patented technologies. The decision may be appealed, but it presents an important management lesson: a patent’s technical and legal strength does not establish its economic value; that value must be connected to a specific commercial benefit through credible evidence.

Listen to the Executive Briefing (14 minutes)

What Is a Patent Worth If You Can’t Prove Its Value?

SmartSky developed technology for providing high-speed communications between ground-based networks and aircraft in flight. Its patents addressed capabilities including beamforming, software-defined radios, communication through unlicensed spectrum, and coordination among ground stations as an aircraft moves through different coverage areas. Gogo, an established provider of in-flight connectivity, later developed a 5G air-to-ground network consisting of approximately 150 base stations and associated aircraft equipment. SmartSky sued Gogo in 2022, alleging that the network infringed four of its patents. After a five-day trial in November 2025, the jury found all four patents valid and infringed, concluded that the infringement was willful, and awarded SmartSky approximately $22.7 million. SmartSky had successfully established that Gogo used its patented technology, but a separate question remained: what was that use worth?

That question became difficult because the court had excluded SmartSky’s expert damages opinions before trial. SmartSky nevertheless proposed a damages calculation based on the number of Gogo 5G equipment kits it believed had been shipped, an average equipment-revenue figure taken from a Gogo regulatory filing, and an allocation of value to the patented features. The court later concluded that the evidence did not support those assumptions. The average revenue figure included non-infringing products and had not been shown to represent the price of the accused equipment. No witness had established the proportion of the system’s value attributable to SmartSky’s patented technologies. On September 30, 2026, the judge therefore set aside the damages award while preserving the jury’s findings concerning validity, infringement, and willfulness. The calculations produced a number, but the evidence did not provide a reliable bridge from the patented capabilities to the $22.7 million award.

The case demonstrates why a patent does not have one fixed economic value. Its value depends on the commercial pathway through which the owner seeks to capture it. An enforcement analysis asks what economic harm or reasonable royalty can be attributed to another party’s use of the invention. A licensing analysis asks which companies need the capability and what would cause them to pay for access to it. Commercialization requires identifying products, customers, and problems that the technology can address. A strategic buyer may value the same portfolio because it accelerates product development, strengthens a market position, or creates access to a new market. Each pathway requires different evidence and may support a different valuation. The useful question is not simply what a patent is worth, but where, how, and for whom its underlying capability creates measurable economic benefit.

That inquiry should begin well before litigation. A company evaluating intellectual property should identify the capability enabled by the invention, the problems that capability can solve, the parties that experience those problems, and the financial consequences of solving them. If a technology increases network capacity, reduces infrastructure requirements, improves service reliability, or allows a provider to charge a premium, those benefits should be investigated and documented. Patent analytics and technical research can identify possible applications, but commercial analysis is needed to determine which applications represent credible opportunities and how their value might be captured. SmartSky’s experience shows the risk of waiting until trial to reconstruct that economic story from incomplete evidence. A strong intellectual-property strategy connects inventions to markets and measurable commercial outcomes while the company still has choices about products, partners, licensing, and investment.