Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
January 3, 2020

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. (1,154 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5945 Hobby, Toy, and Game Shops
451120 Hobby, Toy, and Game Stores
intellectual property, economic damages & lost profits
royalty rate, trade secret, daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, georgia-pacific, reasonable royalty, royalty base, rule 702, reliability, apportionment, entire market value rule (EMVR), relevance
Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 738; 2020 WL 42451
US
Federal Court
Rhode Island
United States District Court
Suzanne Mills-Winkler, Pauline Booth (plaintiff); unknown (defendant)
McConnell Jr.

Summary

In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”

See Also

Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.

Full Text of Court Cases
January 3, 2020

In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”

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