Court Affirms Validity of Patent Citation Analysis in Royalty Calculation

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
November 21, 2016

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,616 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
4812 Radiotelephone Communications
517919 All Other Telecommunications
intellectual property
patent infringement, daubert, economic damages & lost profits, georgia-pacific, reasonable royalty
Comcast Cable Communs. v. Sprint Communs. Co.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161623
US
Federal Court
Pennsylvania
United States District Court
Michele Riley (plaintiffs); Dr. Alan Cox (defendants)
DuBois

Summary

Court says forward citation method to determine value of patent in suit is not per se unreliable and royalty testimony based on it is admissible under Daubert; also, there is no bright-line rule against use of code- or step-counting for apportionment.

See Also

Comcast Cable Communs. v. Sprint Communs. Co.

Full Text of Court Cases
November 21, 2016

Court says forward citation method to determine value of patent in suit is not per se unreliable and royalty testimony based on it is admissible under Daubert; also, there is no bright-line rule against use of code- or step-counting for apportionment.

Court Affirms Validity of Patent Citation Analysis in Royalty Calculation

BVLaw Case Update
February 2017

Court says forward citation method to determine value of patent in suit is not per se unreliable and royalty testimony based on it is admissible under Daubert; also, there is no bright-line rule against use of code- or step-counting for apportionment.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition