In a patent infringement case in Tennessee, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the damages expert for the plaintiffs. The product in question was medical technology used during surgery. Among the arguments for exclusion was that the expert failed to offer reliable testimony to meet his “but for causality” burden for lost profits damages. They also challenged his reasonable royalty rate. The plaintiffs contended that the expert had a reliable foundation for his opinions and any issues the defendants had should be dealt with during cross-examination and not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied, and the expert’s testimony was not excluded.

The case is Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240473, and a case analysis and full court opinion can be found on the BVLaw platform.

Extra: Get a recap of the most notable valuation-related court cases during a February 15 webinar, BVLaw Case Update, hosted by Jim Alerding, who will be joined by fellow valuer Jim Ewart and attorney Andrew Z. Soshnick.