Bombardier Rec. Prods. v. Arctic Cat Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
February 24, 2017

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are 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. (11,646 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3799 Transportation Equipment, NEC
336999 All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
intellectual property
damages, lost profits, daubert, admissibility, georgia-pacific, reasonable royalty, panduit, apportionment, non-infringing alternative
Bombardier Rec. Prods. v. Arctic Cat Inc.
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26517
US
Federal Court
Minnesota
United States District Court
Claude Gelinas, Keith R. Ugone (plaintiffs); unknown (defendants)
Tunheim

Summary

Court rejects Daubert challenge to lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses; court downplays importance of Panduit noninfringing-alternatives requirement and equates Georgia-Pacific analysis with apportionment between patented and unpatented features.
Bombardier Rec. Prods. v. Arctic Cat Inc.
PDF, Size: 163 KB

See Also

Georgia-Pacific Analysis Satisfies Apportionment Requirement, Court Says

Court Case Digests
February 24, 2017

Court rejects Daubert challenge to lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses; court downplays importance of Panduit noninfringing-alternatives requirement and equates Georgia-Pacific analysis with apportionment between patented and unpatented features.

This article also appears in:
Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, Fourth Edition