Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
November 2, 2018
8731 Commercial Physical and Biological Research
541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
intellectual property
daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, reasonable royalty, royalty base, rule 702, apportionment, hypothetical negotiation

Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (II)
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187897
US
Federal Court
Delaware
United States District Court
James E. Malackowski (plaintiffs); Dr. Ryan Sullivan (defendant)
Andrews

Summary

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.

See Also

Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (II)

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.