Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
September 28, 2018

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (955 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
8731 Commercial Physical and Biological Research
541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
intellectual property
expert testimony, admissibility, reasonable royalty, royalty base, rule 702, apportionment, hypothetical negotiation
Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (I)
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167104
US
Federal Court
Delaware
United States District Court
James E. Malackowski (plaintiffs); Dr. Ryan Sullivan (defendant)
Andrews

Summary

Court finds plaintiff expert’s lost profits calculation regarding two-supplier market is inadmissible and rejects reasonable royalty to the extent expert failed to explain how apportionment in benchmark licenses relates to expert’s hypothetical license.

See Also

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

Full Text of Court Cases
September 28, 2018

Court finds plaintiff expert’s lost profits calculation regarding two-supplier market is inadmissible and rejects reasonable royalty to the extent expert failed to explain how apportionment in benchmark licenses relates to expert’s hypothetical license.