No Automatic Bar to Royalties Accruing After Life of Patent

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
July 22, 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. (1,436 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3714 Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories
336390 Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
intellectual property
damages, lost profits, daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, georgia-pacific, reasonable royalty, reliability, panduit, hypothetical negotiation
3M Innovative Props. Co. v. GDC, Inc.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96253
US
Federal Court
Minnesota
United States District Court
Donald Gorowsky (plaintiffs); unknown (defendants)
Frank

Summary

Court finds expert’s use of two-supplier and market share methods as well as Panduit test generate admissible lost profits calculation; court also admits expert’s reasonable royalty analysis, saying it does not include unlawful post-expiration sales.

See Also

3M Innovative Props. Co. v. GDC, Inc.

Full Text of Court Cases
July 22, 2016

Court finds expert’s use of two-supplier and market share methods as well as Panduit test generate admissible lost profits calculation; court also admits expert’s reasonable royalty analysis, saying it does not include unlawful post-expiration sales.

No Automatic Bar to Royalties Accruing After Life of Patent

BVLaw Case Update
November 2016

Court finds expert’s use of two-supplier and market share methods as well as Panduit test generate admissible lost profits calculation; court also admits expert’s reasonable royalty analysis, saying it does not include unlawful post-expiration sales.

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