Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
September 28, 2018
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.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167104
US
Federal Court
Federal
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.
Bio Rad Labs v. 10X Genomics Inc2
PDF, Size: 88 KB

See Also

Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

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.