The Georgia-Pacific factors come from Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp. and provide the standard checklist experts and courts use to reconstruct what royalty rate a hypothetical willing licensor and licensee would have agreed to just before infringement began.

The fifteen factors span categories such as the patentee's existing licenses for the patent in suit, the licensor's established licensing policies, the competitive relationship between the parties, the profitability and commercial success of the patented product, rates paid for comparable technology, and the testimony of qualified experts familiar with the industry. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly cautioned that the factors are a framework for organizing case-specific evidence, not a mechanical checklist to recite without connecting each factor to real facts in the record.

In a simulation, each Georgia-Pacific factor can be exposed as an independent assumption a user can weight up or down, making visible exactly which factors are driving the modeled royalty rate rather than presenting the rate as an unexplained single number.

Damages experts organize their reports and testimony factor by factor, tying each one to case-specific evidence such as existing license agreements, profitability data, and industry practice, since courts closely scrutinize whether an expert's Georgia-Pacific analysis is grounded in the actual record or is instead a generic recitation of the factor list.