Look Inside the Report >>

• Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise
  Federal Court confirms that the Butler-Pinkerton Calculator passes the Daubert standard.
• Alaska Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit affirms district court’s finding that “impeachable” aspects of an expert’s lost profits calculation do not render the opinion inadmissible under Daubert; further, the plaintiff, a profitable Alaska company “since statehood,” proved damages w ...
• Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. City and County of Denver
  Court accepts expert damages calculation for breach of contract based on DCF methodology, including growth rate and discount rate assumptions, but precludes terminal value calculation that violated nonassignment clause.
• Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. (I)
  Federal court dismisses all the damages expert in the case, for both parties, for failure to calculate damages based on reliable consumer surveys and the “real world” cost of infringement alternatives.
• Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (IV)
  Based on prior ruling requiring that analysis of off-the-market lost profits consider potential design-arounds as of the date of first infringement rather than the notice, court rejects Samsung’s pretrial motion to preclude calculation of Apple’s expert.
• Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
  By applying appropriate legal standard (Panduit factors) in infringement case, damages expert defeats Daubert challenge.
• ASARCO v. Americas Mining Corp. (I)
  Fraudulent transfer claims in bankruptcy turn on multi-million dollar valuation of controlling interest in foreign mining company.
• AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation (I)
  In Daubert challenge, district court finds expert misapplied entire market value rule (EMVR) in royalty calculation; although he used the “smallest saleable unit” featuring patented device, he did not account for unit’s other components in determining a r ...
• AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation (II)
  Federal court grants defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude plaintiff’s damages testimony, because the expert failed to show how a single “comparable” settlement agreement that covered a different patent was a reliable basis for his reasonable royalty calc ...
• Baisden v. I’m Ready Productions, Inc. (I)
  Federal court bars testimony of IP expert on lost profits related to movie development and rights for lack of reliability and relevance to original copyright infringement claims.
• Bakst v. United States of America (In re: Kane & Kane)
  In fraudulent conveyance suit, bankruptcy court admits expert’s testimony on reasonable compensation as it relates to reasonably equivalent value for the debtor law firm’s payment of its partners’ income taxes, but strikes insolvency expert’s opinion for ...
• Baldwin v. Bader (II)
  U.S. Court in Maine excludes expert testimony because, despite his extensive experience and effort, he did not have specific experience valuing personal guarantees.
• Basile Baumann Prost Cole & Assoc. v. BBP & Assoc. LLC
  Court strikes expert’s “lost asset value” theory of damages for trademark infringement because it relied entirely on the plaintiff’s allegations that it lost all of its goodwill value due to the defendants’ actions, without adequate proof.
• BC Technical, Inc. v. Ensil International Corporation
  Court confirms admission of expert’s damages calculations, despite their reliance on only five months of pre-contract sales data.
• B-K Cypress Log Homes v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
  Court admits the “before and after” as well as the “yardstick” model developed by the plaintiff’s lost profits expert, leaving questions regarding the underlying assumptions and data for cross-examination at trial, but excludes the defendant’s rebuttal wi ...
• Boltar LLC v. Commissioner
  Tax Court rejects charitable easement appraisal under Daubert, finding the appraisers ignored the before and after method and rejected relevant facts in favor of those that exaggerated value.
• Boomj.com v. Pursglove
  Court declines to exclude expert’s value of shares in publicly traded company, finding the expert adequately considered Rule 144 “time and quantity” restrictions.
• Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse First Boston
  District court strike’s expert event study, purporting to support a “fraud on the market theory,” for “flouting” accepted methodology, including “cherry-picking” the event dates and failing to account for confounding factors.
• Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Coldwater Creek, Inc.
  Good use of marketing and financial expert defeats summary judgment and Daubert motions related to claims of lost profits arising from copyright infringement.
• Calloway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.
  Court denies Daubert challenge to patent damages expert, holding that financial proof of lost profits need not create “fantasy” world, only a “but for” world.
• Caluori v One World Technologies, Inc.
  Court affirms expert’s use of prior lump sum settlement agreement in calculating reasonable royalty for infringement damages under the market approach, after showing that no other licenses existed and the settlement agreement directly related to the paten ...
• Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (I)
  District court rejects defendants’ Daubert challenge finding plaintiff’s expert’s reference to total revenue was legitimate starting point of apportionment analysis and did not amount to use of Entire Market Value Rule.
• Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (IV)
  District court finds plaintiff’s expert qualified to testify to reasonable royalty calculation under Third Circuit’s liberal interpretation of Daubert despite lack of actual experience negotiating patent licenses; a hypothetical negotiation has no applica ...
• Christou v. Beatport, LLC
  In an antitrust suit of dueling nightclub owners, under Daubert district court admits lost profits damages testimony; but, reserving final judgment, court finds plaintiffs’ expert’s lost enterprise calculation lacks requisite logical connection to facts o ...
• Citrin Holdings, LLC v. Minnis
  Appeals court strikes down $28.2 million award to minority owner finding expert’s determination of the present value of the owner’s interest in income-producing properties relied on majority owner’s unreliable internal projections; although a party’s effo ...
• Compania Embotelladora del Pacifico, S.A. v. Pepsi Cola Co.
  Court excludes plaintiff’s financial and marketing experts at trial for failing to support lost profits damages evidence with reliable market sales data.
• Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Farese
  Expert challenged under Daubert for market cap approach to valuing public company stock in economic damages case.
• Coyne’s & Co., Inc. v. Enesco, LLC
  Court admits testimony of lost profits expert under Daubert, despite his overly simplistic analysis, including an alleged failure to consider such basic factors as incremental costs and intervening economic factors.
• Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp. (II)
  Court excludes portions of expert’s second, supplemental report for failure to explain technical and economic comparability of licenses used to calculate reasonable royalty damages in patent infringement case.
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  Landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ended by promulgating a new “gatekeeping” function for federal judges and developing an evidentiary standard now known by a single name: Daubert.
• Dering v. Service Experts Alliance, LLC
  Court emphasizes the importance of accurate calculations in assessing damages, lost profits.
• Development Specialists, Inc. v. Weiser Realty Advisors LLC
  In a malpractice action against a real estate appraiser, district court excludes valuation of leasehold interest by plaintiff’s financial expert for failing to comply with any professional standards, and for unreliability under Daubert.
• Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsis, Inc.
  District court finds expert’s royalty analysis is fatally defective as to the base and rate; expert improperly presumed that using smallest salable unit featuring the patented part ended rate analysis even though that feature was not closely tied to defen ...
• Floorgraphics, Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store Services, Inc.
  Two appraisers testify to lost profits and lost business analysis, defend against Daubert attack. Court examines search for comparables.
• General Electric Co. v. Joiner
  Supreme Court holds that appeals court must review trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony pursuant to Daubert under abuse of discretion standard and district court in case did not err in finding testimony irrelevant and unreliable.
• Guang Dong v. ACI International, Inc.
  In the absence of actual data, expert relies on emails and depositions to arrive at lost profits value.
• Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Monitor Clipper Partners, LLC
  Court considers Daubert challenges against three of the defendants’ damages experts in this trade secrets suit, striking their legal conclusions but keeping most of their testimony regarding unjust enrichment and reasonable royalty damages as it relates t ...
• Harris v. Koenig
  Court upholds the alternative investment method used by ESOP expert to support claims that plan trustee breached its fiduciary duty by imprudently investing in stocks it knew to be artificially inflated by accounting improprieties.
• Heritage Operating, LP v. Rhine Bros. LLC
  Texas Court of Appeals enforces a ten-year non-compete agreement as to an owner selling a business; it also reverses a jury award of zero lost profits damages after finding the plaintiff’s expert offered reliable evidence of lost customer contracts and sa ...
• Ho Myung Moolsan, Co. Ltd. v. Manitou Mineral Water, Inc.
  Court strikes expert’s $133 million lost profits damages for lack of any documentary evidence regarding actual sales the plaintiff made.
• i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (II)
  Court denies Microsoft’s request to set aside $200 million patent infringement damages award based on unreliability of reasonable royalty rate and other epxert evidence.
• Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. MOC Products Co., Inc.
  Federal court permits damages expert to assume the plaintiff’s 50% market share in calculating lost profits, based on information from a technical expert, but disallows him from offering an opinion that the plaintiff in fact held a 50% share, for lack of ...
• In re Capmark Financial Group
  Bankruptcy court confirms reorganization plan based in large part on “put option” approach to valuing corporate insider guaranties.
• In re Eastman Kodak Company
  Bankruptcy court denies shareholders’ renewed request for an equity committee, finding neither the debtor nor its creditors are hiding value in their calculation of the total equity value of less than $500 million; expert testimony as to the allegedly und ...
• In re Houston Drywall, Inc.
  Bankruptcy expert goes “above and beyond” insolvency test to value major asset (municipal reimbursement/receivables) of troubled land development company.
• In re Texans CUSO Insurance Group
  Court confirms expert lost profit damages of $21.1 million based on careful calculation of earnout payments under breached sale and employment agreement.
• In re Washington Mutual, Inc.
  Federal bankruptcy court criticizes debtors’ valuation of its proposed reorganization for being too low and plan objectors value for being too high, ultimately crediting the debtors’ more “complete” valuation, with adjustments.
• In re Williams Securities Litigation
  Tenth Circuit confirms summary dismissal of securities litigation for lack of reliable expert evidence showing a direct causal link between the parent company’s alleged fraud and the subsidiary’s (a telecom company) substantial loss of market value.
• In re Young Broadcasting, Inc.
  Bankruptcy court rejects expert’s “levered DCF” approach under Daubert, finding it untested, unreliable, and unused in any other court or commonly accepted valuation.
• Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC
  District court disqualifies proffered expert under all the Daubert factors, finding he lacked any understanding of patent cases and the dominant legal principles; he applied the discredited 25% rule of thumb and the entire market value rule, failed to pro ...
• Insignia Systems, Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store, Inc.
  Federal district court denies Daubert challenge to plaintiff’s lost profits expert, finding his reliance on optimistic management projections and comparable companies were better suited for cross-examination rather than exclusion.
• IP Innovation LLC v. Red Hat, Inc.
  Court strikes expert’s use of entire market value rule in calculating reasonable royalty damages for a patented invention that is but “one of a thousand” features in the accused system.
• ITT Corp. v. Xylem Group, LLC
  District court dismisses plaintiffs’ overarching claim that a reasonable royalty was not an allowable damage theory in a trademark case, as well as its narrower claim that a royalty was available only to the plaintiff that could point to an established ro ...
• Jack Tyler Engineering Co. v. Colfax Corp.
  In Daubert ruling, court says expert’s lost profits calculation based on discounted cash flow (DCF) method is reliable; plaintiff’s expert properly determined discount factor based on identified sources and made permissible judgment calls based on his exp ...
• JGR, Inc. v. Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. (III)
  On plaintiff’s third attempt to prove damages due to defendant’s breach of contract, Sixth Circuit permits expert to present lost business value based primarily on discounted cash flow analysis.
• Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (I)
  Expert’s present value calculus for patented software fails to meet post-trial federal decisions on evidentiary standards for proving damages in patent cases, but the court grants leave to “repair” the report to conform to new standards.
• Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (II)
  Expert’s supplement report to comply with recent case law concerning sufficiency of proof to prove damages in patent cases fails for lack of qualitative evidence and comparable licenses.
• KSP Investments, Inc. v. United States
  IRS expert defends Daubert attack by focusing on key elements of market approach, "misapplication" of data.
• Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
  At issue is the admittance of expert testimony.
• LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (V)
  Federal Circuit requires the apportionment analysis for patent infringement claims to focus on the “smallest saleable unit.”
• Lawton v. Bank of America Corp.
  Court considers whether an expert can rely on valid but aged report after routine destruction of underlying workpapers, and also whether the expert can supplement the report with information not available at the time of the original.
• Level 3 Communications v. Floyd
  Federal district court precludes defendant’s expert from opining on the appropriateness of legal remedy (loss of use damages vs. lost profits), but admits his testimony criticizing the plaintiff’s loss of use calculus and proposing an alternative damage a ...
• Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (III)
  Federal district court precludes expert’s patent infringement damages under Uniloc standard for failing 1) to establish the patented software as the basis for consumer demand of Microsoft Outlook; or, 2) specifically apportioning damages between the paten ...
• Lyman v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.
  The need for independent verification of data and appraiser objectivity is stressed by the U.S. District Court, in a case where the two appraisers took notably different approaches.
• Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (III)
  Seventh Circuit overturns district court’s decision to exclude plaintiff expert’s business loss calculation, finding the lower court “exercised its role as gatekeeper under Daubert with too much vigor” when it “unduly” scrutinized the quality of the exper ...
• Marcus v. Quattrocchi
  Court says under Daubert a business valuator is qualified to value an investment company dealing in real estate since the company is not a piece of real estate but a business with diverse assets and finds real estate valuation is by nature “imprecise.”
• Marine Travelift, Inc. v. Marine Lift Systems, Inc.
  In Daubert challenge, court finds expert testimony that validates, without any independent analysis, potential loss projections created by plaintiff’s executives is irrelevant and unreliable; the expert failed to examine the underlying assumptions and any ...
• MDG International v. Australian Gold, Inc.
  Court excludes an otherwise “supremely qualified” expert for flaws in his experience and his expert report, including accepting attorney-provided data without independent verification.
• Metro Tech Corp. v. TUV Rheinland of N.A.
  Court limits damages to breach of contract to those that can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and qualifies first-time lost profits plaintiff’s expert to testify re: same.
• Michael Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc.
  Expert's methodology, credentials, called into question in reasonable royalty valuation.
• Mondis Technology, Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
  Federal district court permits patent damages expert to base running royalty calculations on market value of accused products, when “economic justification” supported application of entire market value rule.
• Monsanto v. Tidball
  Expert is disqualified from “saved seed” patent infringement case because she: disregarded federal precedent concerning the limits to reasonable royalties in such cases; lacked sufficient expertise; and was just excluded from testifying in a similar case.
• Multimatic, Inc. v. Faurecia Interior Systems, USA, Inc.
  Court upholds $10 million in lost profits damages against automaker supplier based on letter of intent, confidentiality agreement, and single price quote but confirms exclusion of $28 million in additional damages based on speculation.
• MyGallons LLC v. U.S. Bankcorp
  Fourth Circuit strikes down as “unsupportable” a $4 million lost profits award in a defamation suit; plaintiff’s first expert, a marketing professor, presented inadmissible growth projections that “ignore business realities”; as they formed the basis for ...
• Natchez Regional Medical Center v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC
  Court affirms that Daubert does not require an expert to be certified in accounting or another specialty, so long as he/she possesses the requisite knowledge and experience; and it admits testimony of hospital turnaround and restructuring expert in case a ...
• Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. America
  Court permits plaintiffs’ expert to present a “risk-neutral,” out-of-pocket damages model for losses due to defendant’s allegedly fraudulent annuity products, finding that the model is commonly accepted in the financial and valuation community and the exp ...
• Nelson v. Walnut Investment Partners
  Bankruptcy court denies Daubert motion and grants summary judgment based largely on expert insolvency analysis, despite “professional” disagreement on data used to calculate small stock premium, cost of debt, and company-specific risk premium.
• Netquote v. Byrd (I)
  Court qualifies plaintiff’s expert under Daubert to testify regarding lost value of customer accounts based on review of the accounts, a prior valuation report, and a revenue multiplier derived from existing accounts.
• Netquote v. Byrd (II)
  Court upholds $1.6 million damages award for lost value of lost customer accounts, rejecting defendants’ argument that according to applicable law, the proper and exclusive measure of damages is lost future profits.
• Nordetek Environmental, Inc. v. RDP Technologies, Inc.
  Federal court dismisses expert’s damages calculation of under Daubert for incorrectly applying the diminution of value approach to a recovered business, and for assuming a disputed IP license had no value.
• O’Rourke v. Burke and Hotchkiss
  In Daubert ruling, state court excludes valuation the expert claimed was based on the going concern, or “Queenan” methodology; although a reliable method, it cannot be applied to the facts of the case in a reliable manner, considering the business never h ...
• Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (I)
  Federal district court precludes expert’s billion dollar damages calculations for patent infringement under the entire market value rule and other legal and evidentiary bases, and provides a clear ‘starting point’ for any reasonable royalty analysis.
• Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (II)
  Court sends plaintiff’s expert back for a third try at apportioning infringement damages between patented and unpatented features of technology system (Android), on a claim-by-claim basis.
• Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (III)
  Federal district court strikes portions of plaintiff’s expert’s third and final damages report under Daubert, including the "upper bound" value of his apportionment analysis, his determination of market share based on consumer surveys, and his "independen ...
• Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (IV)
  Federal district court strikes portions of supplemental reports submitted by defendant’s rebuttal witnesses, in part because the patent expert’s failed to analyze predecessors to the patents in suit and the copyright expert applied new methodologies.
• Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (V)
  Federal district court strikes portions of its own expert’s report on patent damages for failing to apportion damages among the patented and unpatented features of the in-suit IP.
• Orthoflex, Inc. v. Thermotek, Inc.
  Court strikes rebuttal testimony under Daubert, where expert admitted he lacked an understanding of the damages concepts central to the opposing expert’s calculation, failed to identify a specific method for his conclusions, and included his clients’ tria ...
• Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.
  Court denies defendant’s Daubert motion finding plaintiff expert determined royalty base consistent with plaintiff’s infringement theory that defendant’s entire product infringed and the product was not functional without the patented technology.
• Physicians Dialysis Ventures, Inc. v. Griffith
  Court articulates qualifications that make business appraiser nearly “bulletproof” under Daubert challenge.
• Popovich v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
  Court weighs in on the "hypothetical market" standard to determine logo's worth.
• Pulse Medical Instruments, Inc. v. Drug Impairment Detection Services, Inc.
  Court admits expert’s “lost opportunity value analysis” for calculating damages, finding that Georgia-Pacific reasonably royalty damages and lost profits are not exclusive remedies in patent infringement cases.
• R&R International v. Manzen, LLC
  Court strikes lost profits calculations for new energy drink distributor because the expert, an industry consultant/investment banker, failed to use scientific methods, market surveys, or reliable benchmark data.
• Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies (I)
  Federal district court excludes hypothetical royalty for copyrighted software based on expert’s failure to rely on any comparable licenses or adequately explain their differences from his estimated 35% rate.
• Rhodes v. Rhodes
  Miss. appellate court confirms “bright line” rule that all goodwill, whether enterprise or personal, of a professional or retail firm, is excluded from the valuation of a business in divorce.
• RMD, LLC v. Nitto Americas, Inc.
  Federal district court finds plaintiff’s expert’s Crystal Ball and Holt Winters methodology to project lost profits admissible under Daubert; method proved reasonable when subsequently tested with regression analysis tool.
• Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (I)
  Court says no requirement exists that expert’s royalty analysis only consider transactions that are both technologically and economically comparable and finds Daubert allows for a reasonable royalty calculation based on a valuation of patent in suit embed ...
• Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)
  Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”
• Rosvold v. LSM Systems Engineering, Inc.
  Court excludes proposed BV expert for failing to have appropriate credentials, experience, and clear methodology.
• Sann v. Mastrian
  Court dismisses as “meritless” a Daubert challenge to a $2.7 million business valuation under the income approach, which claimed the expert incorrectly assumed that there was actually a buyer for the company at this amount.
• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tourre
  Under Daubert, federal court curtails trial testimony of defendant’s expert finding he lacked the appropriate qualifications; in a case centering on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), his financial economics expertise is not even “sufficiently proxim ...
• Stuckey v. Online Resources Corp. (II)
  Court denies Daubert motion against plaintiffs’ expert, finding he applied the correct formula for calculating breach of contract damages for failing to register stock under Delaware law.
• System Development Integration, LLC v. Computer Sciences Corp.
  Court disallows expert theory of “lost opportunity cost” damages for breach of contract, but admits his “standard” lost profits analysis, including reliance on agreed-upon forecasts and an Ibbotson-derived the discount rate.
• Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. v. GMAC
  Court considers motion to exclude expert report for failing to disclose data provider as separate “expert.”
• The Citrilite Co. v. Cott Beverages, Inc.
  Court upholds regression analysis of cumulative data sets under Daubert but strikes portions of expert’s damages calculations that project lost profits beyond stated contract term.
• Tidwell Industries, Inc. v. Diversified Home Products, Inc.
  Court considers whether lost profits expert may rely on client financial information and customer interviews.
• Truman Arnold Companies v. Hammond and Consultants Enterprises, Inc.
  Court vacates future lost profits award based on lack of reliable expert evidence regarding future sales, beyond contract term.
• U.S. Renal Care v. Jaafar
  Texas Court reverses $750,000 jury award for value of patient account receivables for lack of reliable expert evidence, including faulty assumptions and failure to review underlying patient and payer data.
• U.S. Salt, Inc. v. Broken Arrow, Inc.
  Lost profits calculations, based exclusively on management projections, called into question by U.S. District Court.
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. St. Anselm Exploration Co.
  Court denies “dueling” Daubert motion in securities fraud case concerning an oil and gas company, finding the experts on both sides relied on relevant facts and data and generally accepted methodology, including the comparable sales approach that used BLM ...
• Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (I)
  Court denies dueling Daubert motions to exclude parties’ financial experts in patent infringement case.
• Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)
  Federal Circuit abolishes use of 25% rule of thumb in calculation of reasonable royalty rate for patent infringement cases.
• United States v. Schiff
  Comprehensive expert evidence, including statistical event study, required for government to prove causation in criminal securities fraud case.
• Unleashed Magazine, Inc. v. Orange Co., Fla.
  Experience but uncertified expert in licensing loses standing to testify in aggressive deposition questions regarding support for royalty rate calculations.
• Utility Trailer Sales of Kansas City, Inc. v. MAC Trailer Manufacturing, Inc.
  Court qualifies expert’s 20% growth rate in lost profits calculation under Daubert.
• Victory Records, Inc. v. Virgin Records America, Inc.
  Court denies music industry expert under Daubert for failing to verify plaintiff’s internal sales projections; for using only a single comparable; and for failing to consider alternative causes for lost profits.
• Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.
  In a patent case, in a pretrial ruling, the court finds the plaintiff cannot claim direct harm for lost revenues its foreign subsidiary sustained because of the defendants’ infringement by relying on expert testimony that equated the value of the injury d ...
• Von Hohn v. Von Hohn
  Court considers difference between professional/commercial goodwill in valuing plaintiff’s litigation law firm with large, contingency fee work.
• Warren Distributing Co. v. In Bev USA, LLC
  Court considers Daubert challenge that would preclude DCF in valuing beer distribution rights based on alleged flaws and the superiority of market multiple approach.
• WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.
  Court excludes expert’s reasonable royalty analysis because it assumed a “financially catastrophic” deal for the licensor, one that would have eliminated all profits and revenues.
• Willis v. TRC Companies, Inc.
  CEO with 30 years in business (but no BV credentials) survives Daubert challenge.